Category Archives: Annulment action

Case C-456/13 P T & L Sugars Ltd v Commission: Admissibility, Regulatory act, Individual concern

Another judgment of the Court of Justice on Article 263 (4) TFEU and what is a “regulatory act not entailing implementing measures”. And again, the Court held on 28 April 2015 in Case C-456/13 P T & L Sugars v Commission that the measure challenged was not “regulatory act not entailing implementing measures”. Does that judgment end the hopes of those who wished for a broader interpretation of Article 263 (4) TFEU and for a loosening of the rules on standing ?

After all, AG Cruz Villalòn was sympathetic to the idea in his Opinion of 14 October 2014 that the measures challenged were indeed  “regulatory acts not entailing implementing measures” and advised that the action should be declared admissible.

The Court, in its judgment of 28 April 2015 disagreed and relied on its judgment in Telefonica v Commission C-274/12 P, EU:C:2013:852 (which we noted up in our very first post).

Continue reading

Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission: Lack of Legal Basis, Breach of Rights of Defence, Lack of Reasons

The General Court has handed down a number of interesting judgments lately and we need to catch up after a blogging hiatus.

Let’s start with the judgment of 22 April 2015  in Case T‑320/09 Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v Commission, EU:T:2015:223, in which the Court annulled a series of decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the applicant’s registration in the early warning system (‘EWS’) put in place to ostensibly protect the EU’s financial interests.

The interest of the case lies in the fact that the judgment is a sort of text book case of judicial review.  The Court annulled the Commission decisions taken by OLAF on a number of grounds:

  • the Commission had no powers to adopt the measures challenged,
  • the Commission breached the fundamental rights of the applicant,
  • the decisions were not properly reasoned.

Continue reading

Case C-596/13 P Commission v Moravia Gas Storage: Procedural changes, succession of directives and application in time

The Court of Justice’s recent judgment of 26 March 2015 in Case C-596/13 P Commission v Moravia Gas Storage EU:C:2015:203 sets out  – not for the first time – the principle according to which procedural rules in a new directive apply immediately to pending procedures.

Here’s what happened.  Continue reading

Joined Cases T-539/12 and T-150/13 Ziegler v Commission: Damages for a cartel decision

Here’s another twist in the saga of the removal services case. And rather a cheeky one too ! Two undertakings that the Commission found in its decision to have participated in an illicit cartel in breach of Article 101 TFEU sued the Commission in damages …. for adopting that decision ! In its judgment of 15 January 2015 in Joined Cases T-539/12 and T-150/13 Ziegler SA and Ziegler Relocation SA, EU:T:2015:15 the General Court dismissed the claim.

Here’s the story.  Continue reading

Case T-140/12 Teva Pharma BV v EMA and Commission : New pleas and objection of illegality

Proceduralists will love the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 in Teva Pharma BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Commission, T-140/12, EU:T:2015:41. Two interesting procedural points came up:

  1. when can a new plea be adduced by the Applicant in the course of the litigation, and
  2. what sort of measures can be the subject of an objection of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU.

Continue reading

Case C-411/14 P Romano Pisciotti v Commission: Infringement actions, extradition and private complainants

A reminder, in unusual circumstances, that individual cannot compel the Commission to commence infringement proceedings against a Member State pursuant to Article 258 TFEU. That is what the Court of Justice recalls in its Order in Case C-411/14 P Romano Pisciotti v Commission EU:C:2015:48. The case was a little different ….

Continue reading

Case T-479/14 Kendrion v EU (Court of Justice): Damages, duration of judicial proceedings, appropriate defendant.

The General Court handed down an order recently in Case T-479/14 Kendrion NV v EU represented by the Court of Justice, EU:T:2015:2. It finds that the Court of Justice is the right defendant in an action for damages in a claim for compensation for the loss and damage caused by unreasonable delay in judicial proceedings in the General Court.

A rich and spicy situation ! The General Court dismissing an inadmissibility plea by the Court of Justice.

Here’s some explanation and background how such a situation can arise.

Continue reading