ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission

(Case T-551/10) (1)

(State aid - Subsidy for the takeover of a thermoelectric power plant and conversion thereof into a biofuel power plant - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application ratione temporis of the guidelines on national regional aid - Legitimate expectations - Incentive effect)

2013/C 313/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fri-El Acerra Srl (Acerra, Italy) (represented by: M. Todino and P. Fattori, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/110/EU of 15 September 2010 on State aid C 8/09 (ex N 357/08) which Italy intends to grant to Fri-El Acerra Srl (OJ 2011 L 46, p. 28).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fri-El Acerra Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/22

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Preparados Alimenticios v OHIM — Rila Feinkost-Importe (Jambo Afrika)

(Case T-377/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Jambo Afrika - Earlier Community figurative marks JUMBO, JUMBO CUBE, JUMBO MARINADE, JUMBO NOKKOS, JUMBO ROF, JUMBO CHORBA MOUTON-MUTTON, JUMBO Aroma All purpose seasoning Condiment - Earlier national figurative marks JUMBO - Non-registered earlier word mark JUMBO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 9/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Preparados Alimenticios, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG (Stemwede-Levern, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case No R 1144/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Preparados Alimenticios, SA and Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Preparados Alimenticios, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/16

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission

(Case T-164/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Authorisation procedure for placing on the market - Failure by the Commission to submit a draft decision to the Council - Action for failure to act)

2013/C 336/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and T. Müller Ibold, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, N. Yerrell and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration under Article 265 TFEU that, by failing to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) and by failing to take all other measures that may, depending on the development of the decision-making procedure, be necessary to ensure the adoption of the decision referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC by failing to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur)

(Case T-549/10) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark natur - Earlier application for the figurative mark natura - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 007/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Afoi Anezoulaki AE (Kilikis, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and Afoi Anezoulaki AE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 September 2010 (Case R 217/2010-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/30

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2014 — Reagens v Commission

(Case T-181/10) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to requests that certain undertakings’ inability to pay be taken into account in cartel proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Partial access))

2014/C 142/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented initially by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, L. Toffoletti, E. De Giorgi and D. Gullo, lawyers, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, L. Toffoletti and E. De Giorgi)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and J. Bourke, and subsequently by P. Costa de Oliveira and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision Gestdem No 2009/5145 of 23 February 2010, refusing the applicant access to certain documents in the file in Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision Gestdem No 2009/5145 of 23 February 2010, refusing the applicant access to certain documents in the administrative file in Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, to the extent that it refuses access to the non-confidential versions of the undertakings’ requests and to the European Commission’s first questionnaire;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Reagens SpA to pay half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

4. Orders the Commission to pay half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Reagens.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/31

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T-189/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Infringement committed by subsidiaries - Fines - Joint and several liability of the subsidiaries and the parent company - Exceeding the 10 % ceiling for one of the subsidiaries - Decision readopted - Reduction of the fine for that subsidiary - Attribution to the other subsidiary and the parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Right of access to the file))

(2015/C 302/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Kallmayer, I. du Mont and G. Schiffers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 727 of 8 February 2010, amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 727 of 8 February 2010, amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), in so far as it concerns GEA Group AG;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/8

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

(Case T-554/10) (1)

((Public procurement - Tendering procedures - Information technology services, hardware and software licences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bids - Obligation to state reasons - Selection and award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))

(2015/C 190/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decisions to reject the applicant’s bids for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/87/2010 relating to a framework contract for ‘ICT Services’ in the field of management technologies and information security (OJ 2010/S 66-098323) and for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/98/2010 concerning the Eurosur big pilot project in the field of information technologies and communications (OJ 2010/S 90-134098), and also of all associated decisions, including the decisions to award the contracts to other tenderers, and, secondly, for damages for the harm allegedly sustained as a result of the contracts being awarded to those tenderers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 1 (Information systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

2. Annuls the decision of Frontex of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 6 (Enterprise content management systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Frontex, and Frontex to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-202/10 RENV II and T-203/10 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Social housing - Aid scheme for housing corporations - Existing aids - Member State commitments - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Service of general economic interest - Article 106(2) TFEU - Definition of the public service mission))

(2019/C 25/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants in Case T-202/10 RENV II: Stichting Woonlinie (Woudrichem, Netherlands), Woningstichting Volksbelang (Wijk bij Duurstede, Netherlands) and Stichting Woonstede (Ede, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink, J. de Kok, Y. de Vries and F. van Orden, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-203/10 RENV II: Stichting Woonpunt (Maastricht, Netherlands), Woningstichting Haag Wonen (The Hague, Netherlands) and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink, J. de Kok, Y. de Vries and F. van Orden, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt and B. Natens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid No E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — The Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions.

2. Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-202/10, T-202/10 RENV, T-202/10 RENV II, C-133/12 P and C-414/15 P and those incurred by Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) in Cases T-202/10, T-202/10 RENV and T-202/10 RENV II.

3. Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl are ordered to bear their own costs, those incurred by the Commission in Cases T-203/10, T-203/10 RENV, T-203/10 RENV II, C-132/12 P and C-415/15 P and those incurred by IVBN in Cases T-203/10, T-203/10 RENV and T-203/10 RENV II.

4. The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/24

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

(Case T-268/10 RENV) (1)

((REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Intermediates - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 389/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams and E. Mullier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, acting as Agent); and European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, E. Manhaeve and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA (EC No 201-173-7) identifying acrylamide as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in accordance with Article 59 thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/19

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)

(Case T-326/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Community word mark BrainLAB - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the trade mark - Removal of the trade mark from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 165/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4), relating to the application for restitutio in integrum and to the application for the renewal of the registration of the trade mark BrainLAB made by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4);

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/19

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council

(Case T-316/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 319/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Ivory Coast) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Mr Mathieu Kadio Morokro.

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/221 as far as concerns Mr Kadio Morokro until the annulment of Regulation No 330/2011 takes effect.

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadio Morokro.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/19

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

(Case T-234/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Staff cases - EIB staff - Pensions - Contribution to the pension scheme - Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Reasonable period of time)

2012/C 227/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank whose names appear in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, assisted by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB ECR SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB in these proceedings.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/20

Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2012 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-184/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension - Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations - Requirement for precision in the appeal - New plea in law - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - No obligation on the court to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period)

2012/C 194/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and P.-F. Onimus, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy, J. Vermer and K. Zavřelová, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2011 in Case F-77/09 Nijs v Court of Auditors, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.