ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/61

Action brought on 21 February 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-126/14)

2014/C 112/78

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily, annul Article 1 of the contested decision and the annex thereto, in so far as that provision and annex relate to interest, in the amount of EUR 4 703 231,78, which, it is alleged, the Netherlands wrongly failed to calculate in respect of a number of claims relating to the late payment of additional levies and unlawfully granted export refunds;

— In the alternative, annul Article 1 of the contested decision and the annex thereto, in so far as that provision and annex relate to interest, in the amount of EUR 3 208 935,04, which, it is alleged, the Netherlands wrongly failed to calculate in respect of a number of claims relating to the late payment of additional levies;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action seeks partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given, by reason of the lack of coherent and comprehensible reasoning for the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 13(2) TEU by reason of the imposition of an adjustment in relation to interest rates without indication of a basis under European Union law for doing so, and/or misapplication of the principle of equivalence by reason of the assumption that the Netherlands, at the time of the relevant facts, had charged interest in connection with comparable domestic claims.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of care, in conjunction with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91, (2) by reason of the failure to take a decision, prior to 16 October 2006, on outstanding claims.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (OJ 1991 L 67, p. 11).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/49

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-89/14)

2014/C 135/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

— declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

— in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law of which eight are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-65/14 Bank Refah Kargaran v Council.

Furthermore the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equality and of non-discrimination.
1.

In respect of the correction which is imposed by the contested decision in the framework of the single payment scheme of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) (payment entitlements): First plea in law: — Lack of legal basis for the imposition of corrections in relation to the calculation of the single payment entitlements and the allocation of the national reserve and misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 42 and 43 of Regulation No 1782/2003, Article 21 and Article 28(1) and (2) of Regulation No 795/2004 (2) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (3) and — Unlawful imposition of flat-rate corrections in the framework of the single payment scheme, since there is no valid legal basis for the application of the old guidelines in Document VI/5530/1997 to the new CAP and to the single payment scheme, further, the application of the old guidelines to the new CAP constitutes a misuse of the powers of the ΕU in the area of financial corrections and at the same time is a serious infringement of the principle of proportionality. Second plea in law, relating to the non-inclusion of all the forage areas in the calculation of the reference amounts: — Contrary to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality and exceeding the bounds of its discretion, the Commission proposes a 5% flat-rate correction, though it should have proposed no correction, or should have limited it to an amount of 2%. Third plea in law, relating to the non-inclusion of all the forage areas in the calculation of the reference amounts: — Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 2529/2001, resulting in an incorrect basis for the calculation of the proposed flat-rate correction, which ought to be limited to the amount of EUR 162 920 267,28 for the year 2007, EUR 162 528 761,38 for the year 2008 and EUR 161 343 586,94 for the year 2009. Fourth plea in law, in relation to the allocation of the national reserve: — Misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation No 1782/03 and Article 21 of Regulation No 795/2004 (criteria for the allocation of the national reserve) and erroneous assessment of the facts. Fifth plea in law, in relation to the allocation of the national reserve: — Absence of the required conditions for the application of Regulation No 1290/2005, since the Commission’s findings in relation to the national criteria for the allocation of the national reserve do not constitute infringements of it, and· — Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the guidelines in Document VΙ/553O/1997, since (a) the criticisms which the Commission relies on in relation to the criteria for the allocation of the national reserve even if assumed to be correct did not lead to the payment of sums to persons not entitled and did not create the risk of loss for the EAGF and (b) the criticisms in question are not linked to the failure to apply a key control and therefore do not justify the imposition of a flat-rate correction of 10%.
2.

Infringement of the Treaties — The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid. — The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.
—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 December 2013 in Case R 450/2013-1;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/39

Action brought on 19 February 2014 — Finland v Commission

(Case T-124/14)

2014/C 142/51

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 8743 final of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81) in so far as a financial correction of EUR 927 827,58 has been applied to the Republic of Finland on the ground that it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Finland.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which the Commission has incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 55 of Regulation No 1974/2006. (1) The Commission has erroneously considered that the rules laid down in Finland for the grant of aid for the purchase of second-hand machinery and equipment is not compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15).
1.

First plea in law: the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), which forms an integral part of the Treaty of Accession of the Croatian Republic to the European Union concluded between the Croatian Republic and the Member States of the European Union [Narodne novine — Međunarodni ugovori no 2/12 (Official Journal — International Treaties)], in failing to prevent the derogation from the legislation establishing and governing the profession of bailiff, which the Republic of Croatia had adopted during the negotiations on accession to the European Union. Article 36 of the Act of Accession tasks the Commission with monitoring the commitments entered into by the Republic of Croatia during the negotiations on accession to the European Union and, accordingly, the legal obligations assumed by the Republic of Croatia to establish a bailiff service and to ensure the full implementation of that service in the Croatian legal order by 1 January 2012 at the latest. However, the European Commission does not have the power to allow any unilateral amendment of the obligations thus entered into by the Republic of Croatia.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/32

Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Medilab v Commission and ECB

(Case T-152/14)

2014/C 159/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medilab Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.
3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the interpretation of Article 11 of Annexe VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the provisions relating to the transfer of pension rights (relating to paragraphs 74 to 98, 106, 109 and 110 of the judgment under appeal). The Commission claims that, since the concept of ‘[updated] capital value’ referred to in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII is different from the concept of ‘actuarial equivalent’ referred to in Article 11(1) and defined in Article 8 of Annex VIII, the Civil Service Tribunal limited itself to a literal interpretation in coming to conclusions liable to give rise to significant inequalities between officials requesting an inward transfer of their pension rights and those requesting an outward transfer. The Commission maintains that the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation is incompatible with both the need to maintain a financial equilibrium in the European Union pension scheme and the property rights of officials requesting an inward transfer.
—

In this connection the appellant submits, inter alia, that the Civil Service Tribunal examined only whether the setting of the objectives would give rise to binding legal effects for the official’s future appraisal, instead of examining whether the setting of objectives would per se give rise to binding legal effects for the appellant, a question which should, in any event, have been answered in the affirmative. The appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal confused the setting of objectives with his appraisal. In addition, it would be contrary to the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of proportionality and thus to the principle of the rule of law, if an official could be made subject for a whole year to unreasonable working conditions due to unreasonable objectives without being able to defend himself against this directly.
—

Annul, firstly, Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/26

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — USFSPEI v Parliament and Council

(Case T-75/14)

2014/C 194/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union syndicale fédérale des services publics européens et internationaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— accordingly, annul points 27, 32, 46, 64(b), 65(b) and 67(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013;

— order the defendants to pay to USF a symbolic sum of EUR 1 to compensate for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the unlawfulness of points 27, 32, 46, 64(b), 65(b) and 67(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 (1) in so far as they amend, inter alia, Article 5 (creation of the SC function group), Article 6 (elimination of the guarantee of career equivalence), Article 40(2) (restriction of CCP to 12 years), the second paragraph of Article 43 (indication of potential to carry out an administrator’s function starting from grade AST 5 instead of AST), Article 44(1) (new conditions for advancement to a higher step), Article 51 (professional incompetence procedure), Article 52 (leave in the interests of the service), Article 77 (pension accrual rate of 1,8 %), and Annex VIII, Article 9(2) (early retirement without penalty) of the Staff Regulations.

In support of its action, it invokes the infringement of the agreement between the OSP and the legislator on the 2004 reform, in particular on the reform of careers, the principles of a linear career structure and equivalence of careers.

It also invokes breach of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of Article 21 of the European Social Charter, infringement of the principle of acquired rights, the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15).
—

annul Decision 2014/C 37/07 of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources) in the version of 25 October 2008, as amended by Article 5 of the law of 20 December 2012, and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, in so far as the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users such as the applicant is classified as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and provisionally declared incompatible with the internal market in that decision.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the principle of good administration since: — the measure is not necessary and therefore has no proper common interest objective; — the measure includes costs with no common interest justification; — the measure is not an appropriate instrument for achieving the common interest objective; — the measure distorts competition and has an adverse effect on trade; and — the Commission failed to take the overall context into account for the assessment of the measure.
2.

Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU — In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources. — The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue. — The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/20

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-259/14)

2014/C 223/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: L. Delvaux, Agent, and P.-E. Partsch, A. Steichen, D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the taxation scheme for revenue from intellectual property;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1987 final by which the Commission directed the applicant, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) to provide information relating to the taxation scheme for revenue from intellectual property.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in the context of Case T-258/14 Luxembourg v Commission.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).