ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/31

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Cargill v Council

(Case T-117/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))

(2016/C 402/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cargill SACI (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, 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 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 and 2 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 they concern Cargill SACI;

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

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

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/26

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Infineon Technologies v Commission

(Case T-758/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Smart card chips - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Rights of defence - Infringement by object - Proof - Limitation period - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales))

(2017/C 038/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, U. Soltész and P. Linsmeier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes, J. Norris-Usher and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Eveready Battery Company v EUIPO — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)

(Case T-824/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POWER EDGE - Earlier EU word mark EDGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (Saint-Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Imran Hussain, Rizwana Hussain, Maariah Hussain, Danyaal Hussain and Zahra Hussain (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 38/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eveready Battery Company and the Hussains.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eveready Battery Company, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/43

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission

(Case T-783/14) (1)

((Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings - Union industry - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

(2017/C 104/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision, contained in a letter of 15 September 2014 addressed to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, bearing the reference TRADE/H4 (2014) 3328168, on the downward adjustment of the minimum import price for imports of photovoltaic modules and cells manufactured by Chinese exporting producers subject to a price undertaking with effect from 1 October 2014 for the last quarter of 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/19

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — TV1 v Commission

(Case T-700/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of integrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services - Rejection of the tender of one tenderer - Contract awarded to another tenderer - Offer abnormally low - Obligation to request further clarification - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 078/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TV1 GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: C. Scherer–Leydecker, J. Mey and A. Rausch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and M. Noll-Ehlers initially, then F. Moro and T. Maxian Rusche and, lastly, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Katsimerou, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot No. 4, entitled ‘streaming, compression, hosting and content delivery’ in the call for tenders bearing reference PO/2014 — 03/A4 and concerning ‘[i]ntegrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services’, of the decision by which the Commission awarded that lot to the successful tenderer and of the contract for the supply of services concluded between the Commission and the successful tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders TV1 GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/30

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — France v Commission

(Case T-74/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM - Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan - Private investor in a market economy test - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, and subsequently D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013, concerning State aid SA.16237 (C 58/2002) (ex N 118/2002) implemented by France in favour of SNCM.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/28

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — El-Qaddafi v Council

(Case T-681/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Libya - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Retention of the applicant’s name - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 151/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi (Muscat, Oman) (represented by: initially J. Jones QC, and subsequently by S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 52), in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 1), in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the name of Ms Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi on the list in Annexes I and III to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

2. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the name of Ms El-Qaddafi on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission

(Case T-422/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, L. Parpala, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial 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 applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/26

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-831/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) - Audit report - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Amendment of the form of order sought in the course of the proceedings - Set-off of claims - Counterclaim - Default interest))

(2018/C 005/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: initially, G. Gentil Anastácio, D. Pirra Xarepe and L. Rodrigues Carvalho, and subsequently G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking, in essence, a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission against the applicant under Grant Agreement No 238882 on the EU financing of the ‘Save Energy’ project, concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) established by Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 310, p. 15) is non-existent, and, secondly, counterclaim seeking, in essence, an order that the applicant repay the subsidy wrongly paid under that grant agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action brought by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda;

2. Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849,93, increased by default interest at the rate of EUR 26,88 per day with effect from 20 June 2015;

3. Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council

(Case T-798/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - EU-Turkey Association Agreement - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))

(2018/C 392/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DenizBank A.Ş. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: O. Jones, D. Heaton, Barristers, R. Mattick, S. Utku, Solicitors, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially S. Boelaert and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, and subsequently S. Boelaert and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3) and by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders DenizBank A.Ş. to bear its 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 89, 16.3.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission

(Case T-445/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 328/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the 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.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — FIH Holding and FIH v Commission

(Case T-386/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the body responsible for guaranteeing financial stability - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Admissibility - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 399/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) and FIH A/S, previously FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by FIH Holding A/S and FIH A/S.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

(Case T-498/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Documents related to correspondence between the European Commission and car manufacturers concerning refrigerant R1234yf used in motor vehicles - Documents not included - New plea put forward in the course of the proceedings - Inadmissibility - Measure of inquiry ordering the production of the contested documents in accordance with Article 104 of the Rules of Procedure - Derogation to the principle of adversarial proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Public interest in disclosure - Balance - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the environmental information or relating to emissions into the environment - General proposition - Partial refusal to grant access - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 82/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Vondung, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, in cooperation initially with R. van der Hout and A. Köhler, then R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2014/547 of 2 June 2014, confirming the refusal to grant access to all the documents related to correspondence between the European Commission, on the one hand, and the undertakings Honeywell et DuPont or car manufacturers, on the other hand, during the period from September 2011 until April 2012 and from September 2012 until the end of January 2014, concerning refrigerant R1234yf used in motor vehicles.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2014/547 of 2 June 2014, in so far as it concerns the initially redacted parts of document No 34 which, subsequently, were made public;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/49

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt)

(Case T-63/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 048/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2560/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.