ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-502/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Rights of defence)

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-502/15) ( 1 )

‛(EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Rights of defence)’

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by M. Sampol Pucurull, A. Gavela Llopis and V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Guillem Carrau and D. Triantafyllou, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) as regards certain corrections made in respect of Catalonia, on the one hand, and the Canaries, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/27

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-506/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Cross-compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions - Duty to state reasons - Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court))

(2018/C 104/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/14

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB

(Case T-712/15) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision at the consolidated level - Group subject to prudential supervision - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body - Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Capital requirements - Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013))

(2018/C 042/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie and P. Mele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K, Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and D. Martin, M. Pittie and M. Françon, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG 7B84NLR5984/28 of the ECB of 4 October 2015 setting out the prudential requirements for the Crédit Mutuel group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission (State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission

(Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15) ( 1 )

‛(State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)’

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, in part, of, first, Commission decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA.41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 24), and, second, of Commission decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/41

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15) (1)

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Justification for the public contribution - Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 - Time-limit not respected))

(2018/C 142/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, D. Recchia and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 2230 of 31 March 2015 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at the IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ under Priority Axis No 4 of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
1.

Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/2432 of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law in so far as they declare that the grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of State aid is incompatible with the internal market in respect of the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria and order recovery of that aid;
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 —Austria v Commission

(Case T-356/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Contract for Difference, Secretary of State Agreement and Credit Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Public interest objective - Promotion of nuclear energy - Need for State intervention - Guarantee Notice - Determination of the aid element - Proportionality - Investment aid - Operating aid - Right to submit observations - Public procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 311/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, and subsequently by G. Hesse and M. Fruhmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented initially by: M. Fehér and M. Bóra, subsequently by B. Sonkodi, then by A. Steiner, acting as Agents, and by P. Nagy, lawyer, and finally by A. Steiner), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Romania (represented initially by: R. Radu and M. Bejenar, and subsequently by M. Bejenar and C. R. Canţăr, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: C. Brodie and S. Brandon, subsequently by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and M. Holt, then by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and D. Robertson, then by C. Brodie and D. Robertson, then by C. Brodie, and finally by C. Brodie and Z. Lavery, acting as Agents, and by T. Johnston, Barrister, and A. Robertson QC)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44), in which the Commission found that that State aid measure was compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and authorised its implementation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-553/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources at issue - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2019/C 220/39)

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 (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the restrictive measures adopted against it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Export Development Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission

(Case T-284/15) (1)

((State aid - Chemical industry - Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings - Decision finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private creditor test - Whether attributable to the State - Duty to state reasons))

(2019/C 82/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: initially P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos, E. Kazili, P. Oravec et K. Csach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent); and Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of AlzChem AG;

3. Orders the Slovak Republic and Fortischem a.s. to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission

(Case T-121/15) (1)

(State aid - Chemical industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Advantage - Recovery - Economic continuity - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 423/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented initially by P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos and V. Dolka, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 3 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Quanta Storage v Commission

(Case T-772/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2019/C 305/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (Taoyuan, Taiwan) (represented by: O. Geiss, lawyer, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and W. Sparks, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents, and by C. Thomas, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the European Commission’s request that the amount of the fine of Quanta Storage, Inc. be increased;

3. Orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/39

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-175/16) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 144/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1725/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/26

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers)

(Case T-16/16) (1)

((Community design - Application for Community designs representing beakers - ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ - Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought - Refusal to remedy the deficiencies - Refusal to attribute a date of filing - Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002))

(2017/C 086/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2015 (Case R 1842/2015 3), concerning applications for the registration of beakers as Community designs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/23

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Blended shades of green)

(Case T-36/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU trade mark consisting of blended shades of green - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: S. Overhage, R. Böhm and A. Silverleaf, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 597/2015-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica and Enercon.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/27

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE)

(Case T-219/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 (Case R 507/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ViSAGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.