ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation infringes Article 10(2) and Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and the precautionary principle under primary law, at least in so far as it provides for threshold values of 270 g CO2 eq per kWh and 550 kg CO2 eq per kW per year averaged over 20 years for activities relating to fossil gas. The contested regulation is based on an unlawful softening of the condition that there should be no technologically and economically feasible alternative to transitional activities within the meaning of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EU) 2020/852. Furthermore, the thresholds would not be in line with the 1,5 oC target of the Paris Climate Agreement and the Union’s climate objectives. As the threshold values are only linked to direct GHG emissions, the life cycle analysis requirement is also violated. The thresholds also fall short of the best performance of the sector or industry, hinder the development of low-carbon alternatives and lead to impermissible lock-in effects. At the very least, the contested regulation is vitiated in this respect by deficiencies in the investigation and in the statement of reasons.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Pamastock Investments v Commission

(Case T-701/22)

(2023/C 24/77)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Pamastock Investments, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 December 2022 — TG v Commission

(Case T-755/22)

(2023/C 24/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TG (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded; consequently:

— annul the decision of 11 March 2022 refusing to recognise the applicant’s illness as a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

— annul the decision of 25 August 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2022;

— order the defendant to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono, in the amount of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 3195 of 2 July 2007, as amended by the decision of 12 May 2020.
—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (the ‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant (Listing Entry No. 724).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Road Star Group (Footwear)

(Case T-757/22)

(2023/C 35/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Road Star Group (Nupaky, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 4 160 273-0015

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1900/2021–3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Starboard v Commission

(Case T-710/22)

(2023/C 35/86)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Starboard, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Comission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — TUI Holding v EUIPO — inCruises International (INCRUISES)

(Case T-780/22)

(2023/C 45/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TUI Holding Spain, SLU (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: H. Fangmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: inCruises International LLC (San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INCRUISES — Application for registration No 18 034 630

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1081/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/17

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Salzgitter AG v European Commission

(Case T-308/00 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Steel industry - Tax incentives for the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic - Non-notified aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Recovery - Delay - Legal certainty - Calculation of the aid to be repaid - Aid falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty - Investments for the protection of the environment - Discount rate)

2013/C 63/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Salzgitter AG (Salzgitter, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and A. Wiedmann, Agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Salzgitter AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/27

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

(Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD - Appellations ‘bud’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Česke Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum and C. Petsch, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, B. Goebel and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and B. Goebel, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2006 (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June 2006 (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the joinder of Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs (OHIM) of 14 June (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik;

4. Orders Anheuser-Busch to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/15

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — 3F v Commission

(Case T-30/03 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Fiscal aid granted by the Danish authorities - Seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Serious difficulties)

2011/C 331/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: P. Bentley QC and A. Worsøe, lawyer, and subsequently by Mr. Bentley and P. Torbøl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Intervening party on behalf of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Vang, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish fiscal measures applicable to seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID), to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice and the General Court;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission

(Case T-20/03) (1)

(State aid - Existing aid or new aid - Firm in difficulty - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Private investor test - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions)

(2008/C 285/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Kahla, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte and S. Zühlke, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, Agents, assisted by C. Koenig, professor)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Freistaat Thüringen (Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Weitbrecht and A. van Ysendyck, and subsequently by A. Weitbrecht and M. Núñez-Müller, lawyers); and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12), in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs;

3. Orders the Land of Thuringia and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear theirown costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Region and La Rioja in financial year 1998/1999 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the one hand, and expenditure incurred before 22 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Region in financial year 1999/2000 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the other;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/30

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Schunk and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik v Commission

(Case T-69/04) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Plea of illegality - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and effect of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of proportionality - Principe of equal treatment - Counterclaim to increase the fine)

(2008/C 301/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Schunk GmbH (Thale, Germany); and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik GmbH (Heuchelheim, Germany) (represented by: initially by R. Bechtold and S. Hirsbrunner, and subsequently by R. Bechtold, S. Hirsbrunner and A. Schädle, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and H. Gading, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision, and a counterclaim of the Commission seeking to have that fine increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Schunk GmbH and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2004 — KONGRA-GEL and Others v Council

(Case T-253/04) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 142/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: KONGRA-GEL and the nine other applicants whose names are shown in the annex to the judgment (represented by M. Muller QC, E. Grieves and C. Vine, Barristers, and J.G. Pierce, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents, and S. Lee, Barrister)

Re:

First, the partial annulment of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28), and of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70), and, secondly, damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC in so far as it concerns KONGRA-GEL;

2. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by the applicants;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/32

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — Wieland-Werke v Commission

(Case T-116/04) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Principle that penalties must have a sound legal basis - Size of the market concerned - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Cooperation)

2009/C 153/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, Lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. Gading, and subsequently É. Gippini Fournier, O. Weber and K. Mojzesowicz, Lawyers)

Re:

Annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2(a) of Commission Decision C(2003) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 — Industrial tubes).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wieland-Werke AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/19

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-224/04) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the processing of tomatoes and production of olive oil)

(2009/C 6/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2003 L 184, p. 42) to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure by the Italian Republic in the financial years 1999 to 2002.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 13.12.2003 (formerly Case C-430/03).
Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — France v Commission (State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Absence of extension of the formal investigation procedure — Rights of the defence — Test of the prudent private investor — Normal market conditions — Errors of law — Manifest errors of assessment)

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-425/04 RENV and T-444/04 RENV) ( 1 )

‛(State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Absence of extension of the formal investigation procedure — Rights of the defence — Test of the prudent private investor — Normal market conditions — Errors of law — Manifest errors of assessment)’

Parties

Applicants: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) (T-425/04 RENV); and Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers) (case T-444/04 RENV)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant, the French Republic: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by U. Soltész, lawyer)

Re:

Actions for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom;

2. Declares that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the claims for annulment of Article 2 of Decision 2006/621;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom;

4. Orders the French Republic and Orange, formerly France Télécom, each to bear two-tenths of their own costs;

5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.