ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/24

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-662/14) (1)

((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 251/26)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/24

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-17/14) (1)

((Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country - Career of officials with the grade of administrator - Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures - Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the trade unions))

(2016/C 392/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union pour l’Unité (U4U) (Brussels, Belgium), Unité & Solidarité — Hors Union (USHU) (Brussels), Regroupement Syndical (RS) (St Josse ten Noode, Belgium) and Georges Vlandas (Brussels) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer, M. Veiga and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Article 1(27), (61), (70) and (73)(k) of 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), in so far as those provisions amend Article 45 and annexes I, X and XIII of those regulations, annexed to Regulation No 31 (EEC)/11(EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1385).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Union pour l’Unité (U4U), Unité & solidarité — Hors Union (USHU), Regroupement Syndical (RS) and Mr Georges Vlandas to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/23

Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council

(Case T-790/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission - Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the applicant's name on the lists - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 326/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Pettiti, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 3), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU asking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered because of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Samir Hassan to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/12

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission

(Case T-632/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Commission decision to require repayment of the sums paid to the applicant - Contractual nature of the dispute - Article 44(1)(c) and Article 44(5a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 - Admissibility - Scope of the audit - Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods))

(2016/C 410/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Re:

Principally, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission infringed the provisions of the grant agreement No 224635 relating to financing the project ARTreat, and annulment of the Commission’s letter of 28 July 2014 informing the applicant, on the basis of an audit carried out by it, of the recovery of a sum of EUR 258 479,21 which had been unduly paid to the applicant as an EU financial contribution and, alternatively, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the sums paid corresponded to eligible expenditure and need not, therefore, be repaid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Intercon sp. z o.o. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/32

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council

(Case T-120/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))

(2016/C 402/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Ciliandra Perkasa (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as it concerns PT Ciliandra Perkasa;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by PT Ciliandra Perkasa;

3. Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/27

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-808/14) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Duty of diligence - Reasonable period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Subsidiarity - Right to information))

(2017/C 038/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, and subsequently by A. Gavela Llopis, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/14

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — ECB v Cerafogli

(Case T-787/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - ECB Staff - Access to documents - Documents relating to the dispute between the parties in the proceedings - Partial refusal of access - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Plea of illegality))

(2016/C 462/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented initially by E. Carlini, M. López Torres and F. Malfrère, and subsequently by E. Carlini and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-26/12, EU:F:2014:218) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Maria Concetta Cerafogli;

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

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/41

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA

(Case T-493/14) (1)

((Seconded national expert - EFSA rules on SNEs - Decision not to extend the secondment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions - Written pleadings supplementing the originating application - Amendments to the heads of claim - Admissibility))

(2017/C 104/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant): European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU challenging the decisions of EFSA, first, dismissing the applicant’s request to extend her secondment as a national expert at EFSA and, second, refusing her request for access to documents held by EFSA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Ingrid Alice Mayer to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/20

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission

(Case T-703/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - ‘Firerob’ contract concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Request for reimbursement of the amounts paid to the applicant - Delegation of power - Admissibility - Abuse of contractual rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))

(2017/C 078/26)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE (Kaisariani, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis and E. Chrysochoïdou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, M. Konstantinidis and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking, first, a declaration by the Court that the Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by issuing Debit Note No 3 241 409 008 of 25 July 2014 and that the costs declared by the applicant in the context of Contract FP7-SME-2007-222303, relating to the realisation of Project ‘FIREROB — Autonomous Fire-Fighting Robotic Vehicle’, are eligible and, second, an order for the Commission to issue a credit note for an amount of EUR 64 574.73.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;

2. Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action in so far as it concerns a request for reimbursement of an amount exceeding EUR 37 247.05, plus interest starting from 9 September 2014;

3. Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Contract FP7-SME-2007-222303, relating to the realisation of Project ‘FIREROB — Autonomous Fire-Fighting Robotic Vehicle’, by asking Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE to repay an amount exceeding EUR 9 007, plus interest starting from 9 September 2014;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

6. Orders Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net to bear one quarter of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/31

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos (Oksana)

(Case T-767/14) (1)

((New varieties of plants - Community plant variety rights - Application for a Community plant variety right for the pear variety Oksana - Objections - Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Novelty of the candidate variety - Lack of evidence))

(2017/C 283/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Jonker, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: F. Mattina, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Artevos GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, W.R. Kunze, lawyers, and B. Schnell, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO: Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt eV (Bielefeld, Germany)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 July 2014 (Case A 007/2013) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right in respect of pears of the Oksana variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/21

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — HB and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of stray animals - Psychological effects on adults and children - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011))

(2017/C 161/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HB (Linz, Austria) and the six other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially C. Kolar, and subsequently by F. Moyse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and J. Vondung, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2119 final of 26 March 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HB and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Concept of an undertaking - Economic succession - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable SAS (Montereau-Fault-Yonne, France) and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and I. De Beni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/16

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission

(Case T-818/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market - Legally binding act - Limitation period - Economic nature of the ILS - Proportion of economic use of the installations - Incorrect numerical data - Request for adjustment - Determination of the updated values - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition - Legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 094/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, S. Golinvaux, H. Tacheny and J. Delarue, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Brussels Airport Company SA (represented by: T. Janssens, F. Hoseinian and T. Oeyen, lawyers) and Brussels Airlines SA/NV (represented initially by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, D. Vallindas and D. Dauchez, and subsequently by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 concerning measures SA. 14093 (C76/2002) implemented by Belgium in favour of BSCA and Ryanair.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA);

3. Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — EAEPC v Commission

(Case T-574/14) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Parallel trade in medicines - Agreement operating a distinction between prices charged for products intended for resale in Spain and prices charged for products intended for export to other Member States - Request for re-examination of a complaint following judgments of the Court of Justice and the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Rejection of a complaint - No Union interest - Cessation of the anti-competitive practice - Absence of persisting anti-competitive effects - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Article 105 TFEU - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Procedural rights of a complainant - Obligation to state reasons)

(2018/C 427/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Vollrath, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: GlaxoSmithKline plc (Brentford, United Kingdom) and GlaxoSmithKline SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially I.S. Forrester QC, and A. Komninos, lawyer, and subsequently A. Komninos)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant concerning an alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA of Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.