ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità v Commission

(Case T-186/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 301/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that Asstra Associazione Trasporti is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case T-43/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission

(Case T-43/15) ( 1 )

‛(Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection)’

Parties

Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented initially by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi and subsequently by: G. Forte and C. Marinuzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Bianchi, J. Guillem Carrau and F. Moro, and subsequently by: D. Bianchi, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and M. Scino, avvocato dello Stato), Consorzio di Promozione e Tutela della Piadina Romagnola (Co.P.Rom) (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and P. Rodilosso, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CRM srl to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission

(Case T-631/15) (1)

((State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link rail-road project - Individual aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Decision finding no State aid and declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Definition of State aid - Adverse effect on competition and effect on trade between Member States - Conditions governing compatibility - Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest - Necessity of the aid - Incentive effect - Proportionality of the aid - Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Communication on State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest))

(2019/C 82/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stena Line Scandinavia AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, and L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart (Gothenburg) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch and J. Buendía Sierra, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially C. Thorning, and subsequently J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5) in so far as the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the measures granted by the Kingdom of Denmark to Femern A/S for the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Stena Line Scandinavia AB;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-508/15) (1)

((EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure by Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Concept of carrying out a commercial farming activity - Connection with the concept of semi-subsistence farming))

(2019/C 35/21)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, M. Palionis, T. Lozoraitis, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Petrauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39), in that that decision imposed on the Republic of Lithuania a flat-rate financial correction of 5 %, thereby excluding the sum of EUR 1 938 300,08 from financing under the ‘Early retirement’ measure during the period from 16 October 2010 to 15 October 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Huhtamäki and Huhtamäki Flexible Packaging Germany v Commission

(Case T-530/15) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Evidence of involvement in the cartel - Single and continuous infringement - Attributability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 295/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Huhtamäki Oyj (Espoo, Finland) and Huhtamäki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Ronsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Stammwitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, principally, the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Huhtamäki Oyj and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-259/15) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Construction of an energy unit - Extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Financial and economic capacity - Technical and professional capacity - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 187/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium), Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by M. Rantala and M. Mraz, and subsequently by J.-M. Stenier, B. Schäfer and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 19 March 2015 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in the context of the call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO 4, relating to public works contracts in respect of Lot No 73 (energy unit) for the project to extend and refurbish the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg and awarding that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders SA Close and Cegelec, on the one hand, and the European Parliament, on the other, each to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T-209/15) (1)

(State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public funding by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo for setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Recovery - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 95/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, K. Herrmann and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 165).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gmina Kosakowo, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Netherlands and Others v Commission

(Cases T-760/15 and T-636/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by the Netherlands - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Transfer pricing - Calculation of the tax base - Arm’s length principle - Advantage - Reference system - Fiscal and procedural autonomy of the Member States)

(2019/C 413/47)

Language of the case: Dutch and English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-760/15: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by M. Bulterman, B. Koopman, M. de Ree and M. Noort, subsequently by M. Bulterman)

Applicants in Case T-636/16: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States), Starbucks Manufacturing Emea BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Petite and M. Stroungi, lawyers),

Defendant: European Commission (in Case T-760/15 represented initially by P. J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, subsequently by P. J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents, and in Case T-636/16, by P. J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-760/15: Ireland (represented initially by E. Creedon, G. Hodge, K. Duggan and A. Joyce, subsequently by G. Hodge, A. Joyce, K. Duggan, M. Browne and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Collins, P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty and S. Kingston, Barristers)

Re:

Applications based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/502 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks (OJ 2017 L 83, p. 38).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-760/15 and T-636/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/502 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Starbucks Corp. and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea BV;

4. Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/47

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v EUIPO — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)

(Case T-24/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FONTOLIVA - Earlier national word mark FUENOLIVA - Relative ground for refusal - Validity of the registration of the earlier mark - Submission of new facts and evidence before the General Court - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter - Article 8(1)(b), Article 42(2) and (3) and Articles 65 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 030/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mueloliva, SL (Córdoba, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1813/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mueloliva and Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1813/2014-2);

2. Rejects the opposition filed by Mueloliva, SL to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FONTOLIVA applied for by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

5. Orders EUIPO and Mueloliva each to pay half of the costs necessarily incurred by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/20

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

(Case T-400/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 129/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 2273/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MAXPLAY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maximum Play, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/27

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)

(Case T-106/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO - Earlier EU figurative mark zero - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 086/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/27

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Azoulay and Others v Parliament

(Case T-580/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))

(2017/C 195/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Irit Azoulay (Brussels, Belgium), Andrew Boreham (Wansin-Hannut, Belgium), Mirja Bouchard (Villers-la-Ville, Belgium) and Darren Neville (Ohain, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 24 April 2015 refusing to grant education allowances for the year 2014/2015 and, so far as necessary, annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 17 and 19 November 2015 partially rejecting the applicants’ complaints of 20 July 2015.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-9/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
2)

Declares that partial recovery by way of compensation, to the amount of EUR 132 192,12 of the debt claimed is contrary to grant agreement No 211166 concluded on 18 August 2008 for the implementation of the Minatran project and to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/23

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

(Case T-375/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 221/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Crabbe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/29

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T-159/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE O NADA - Earlier EU figurative mark TRIPLE BINGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 213/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 2605/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and Metronia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Metronia, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.