ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ceobus and Others v Commission

(Case T-330/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2019/C 328/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ceobus (Génicourt, France) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by D. de Combles de Nayves and subsequently by F. Segalen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Ceobus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)

(Case T-792/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MANDO - Earlier international and national figurative marks MAN - Earlier national word mark Man - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MAN Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, and subsequently by J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, South Korea) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch and C. de Haas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1677/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MAN Truck & Bus and Halla Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1677/2016-1) to the extent that it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark MANDO and the earlier international registration No 863 418 of the figurative mark MAN.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 – GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for gadolinium-containing contrast agents - Articles 31 and 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Impartiality)

(2019/C 406/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), the marketing authorisations for gadolinium-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’, in so far as that decision concerns Omniscan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GE Healthcare A/S to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — WhiteWave Services v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

(Case T-176/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VeGa one - International registration designating the European Union in respect of the earlier word mark Vegas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 399/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WhiteWave Services, Inc. (Broomfield, Colorado, United States), authorised to replace Sequel Naturals ULC (represented by: H. Lindström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carlos Fernandes (Groß-Umstadt, Germany) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2466/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Carlos Fernandes and Sequel Naturals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Grants WhiteWave Services, Inc. leave to replace Sequel Naturals ULC as applicant;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders WhiteWave Services to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

4. Orders Mr Carlos Fernandes to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission

(Case T-835/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine - Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia - Determination of injury - Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country - Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Termination without measures - Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures - Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036)

(2020/C 175/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade (represented by: R. Luff, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017 L 258, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — E-Control v ACER

(Case T-332/17) (1)

(Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Determination of the capacity calculation regions - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible in part - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - ACER’s competence)

(2019/C 432/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Verbund AG (Vienna) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision A-001-2017 (consolidated) of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 17 March 2017 dismissing the appeals against Decision No 6/2016 issued by ACER regarding the determination of capacity calculation regions in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Declares that ACER is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by E-Control;

4. Declares that E-Control is to bear three quarters of its own costs;

5. Declares that the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and Verbund AG are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-699/17) (1)

(Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Industrial emissions - Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Large combustion plants - Best available techniques (BAT) conclusions - Article 16(4) and (5) TEU - Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions - Application of the law ratione temporis - Comitology)

(2021/C 88/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Ł. Habiak, K. Herrmann and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and T. Mitova, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: J. Traband and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, L. Zettergren and A. Alriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants;

2. Orders that the effects of the implementing decision annulled pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present operative part be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed twelve months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it and adopted in accordance with the qualified-majority rules laid down in Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions;

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

4. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the French Republic, Hungary and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-411/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Plea of illegality - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 390/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, T. Van Dyck and A. Kopp, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Session of the SRB of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05, in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, for six months from the day on which the present judgment becomes final;

3. Orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Landesbank Baden-Württemberg;

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

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-190/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Cater contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests)

(2022/C 95/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos. lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, T. Adamopoulos and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note No 3241615289 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 172 992,15 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Cater is, in the amount of EUR 28 520,08, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Bateni v Council

(Case T-455/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Limitation period - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2021/C 338/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: .-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hödlmayr, J. Roberti di Sarsina and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of his name in the lists set out, first, in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), by means of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), and in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), by means of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), secondly, in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and, thirdly, in the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;

2. Orders Mr Bateni to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

(Case T-628/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Delegation of power - Right to be heard - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 14, 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014)

(2022/C 294/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, R. Vallina Hoset, G. Serrano Fenollosa, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and M. Fernández Rupérez, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, M. Martínez Iglesias, L. Visaggio, J. Etienne, M. Menegatti and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, J. Bauerschmidt, H. Marcos Fraile and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents), Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, A. Rodríguez Conde, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and J. Remón Peñalver, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of, first, Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-343/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Limitation period - State constraint - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of anticompetitive behaviour by public authorities - Substantially reduced participation - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: R. Kreisberger, QC, N. Grubeck, Barrister, M. Rees, Solicitor, and E. Estellon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, QC)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(1)(g) and (4)(g) of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd in Article 3(g) of that decision at EUR 47 040 000;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Cathay Pacific Airways to bear one third of its own costs;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Cathay Pacific Airways.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.