ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Proceedings before the Court of Justice on appeal — Expenses necessarily incurred in those proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 17)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 18)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers — Determination of fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 19)

4. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 20)

5. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Intervener (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 26)

6. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Lawyers’ knowledge of the case — Lawyers who have represented the applicant in that case both before the General Court and the Court of Justice — Taking account of that circumstance when determining the amount of costs which are recoverable (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 in Case C-451/10 P TF1 v Commission .

Operative part

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs that Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) must pay to France Télévisions SA is fixed at the sum of EUR 13 200.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2010 – Băilă v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Minicipiului Craiova and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-377/10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Lack of relationship with the reality or the subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings – Inadmissibility

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Questions submitted in a context precluding a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 11-14, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Dolj – Registration of second‑hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State – Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a given Member State – Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU – Temporary exemption for vehicles with certain characteristics.

Operative part:
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 – Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case C-254/10 P)

Appeal – Aid scheme in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium – Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment – Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ – Res judicata

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – review by the Court of the assessment made of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see paras 36-38)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 – Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7) – Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment – Concept of interest in bringing proceedings – Res judicata.

Operative Part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgi-Jiu and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Vijulan

(Case C-335/10)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Domestic taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied at the time of registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory – Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles and without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market – Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 20-21, 23, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Craiova – Registration of second-hand cars previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration in a given Member State – Compatibility of the national legislation with Art. 110 TFEU – Temporary exemption for vehicles with certain characteristics.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 – TF1 v Commission

(Case C-451/10 P)

Appeal – State aid – Article 86(2) EC – Public service broadcasting – Decision not to raise objections – Proof – Economic efficiency of the undertaking

1. State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary stage and stage involving the exchange of views and arguments – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Difficulties of assessment – Commission’s duty to open the inter partes procedure – Definition – Serious difficulties – Burden and extent of proof in the case of an action for annulment of the decision not to raise objections (Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4(3)) (see paras 47-50, 52)

2. Appeals – Operative part of the judgment justified by ground stated ex abundanti cautela – Rejection (see paras 62-63)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T‑568/08 and T‑573/08 TF1 and M6 v Commission , by which that court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA – Infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence – Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU – Concept of ‘service of general economic interest’ – No serious difficulties.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 46)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Extent (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 57-58)
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 15, 29, 64, 76, 78, 82)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company wields decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 23, 26, 28, 31, 36, 45-47, 57)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see paras 33, 64, 72)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Deterrent effect of the fine — Necessary to fix an amount greater than the profit made from the infringement and to take into consideration the undertaking’s power (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission communication 2006/C 210/02, para. 30) (see para. 86)

5. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Excluded (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 90)
Order of the President of the General Court 29 March 2012 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C-570/11 P(R))

‛Appeal — Interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Interest in obtaining suspension’

Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Request seeking suspension of the operation of a negative administrative decision — Decision of the European Parliament refusing a request for the defence of the immunity of one of its Members — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T-347/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament, dismissing as inadmissible the application for suspension of the operation of a measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Gollnisch is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the President of the General Court 29 March 2012 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C-570/11 P(R))

‛Appeal — Interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Interest in obtaining suspension’

Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Request seeking suspension of the operation of a negative administrative decision — Decision of the European Parliament refusing a request for the defence of the immunity of one of its Members — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T-347/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament, dismissing as inadmissible the application for suspension of the operation of a measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case C-477/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ — Marketing authorisation — Procedure — Statement of position by the Commission — Status of ‘new active substance’ — Concept of ‘actionable measure’’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission setting out its position as to the steps to be taken in response to the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 51-58, 60, 61)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09 P Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2009 finding, in the context of the procedure for granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Lunivia’, produced by the appellant, that the active substance ‘eszopiclone’, which it contains, does not constitute a new active substance within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Concept of actionable measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Sepracor Pharmaceuticals Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case C-477/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ — Marketing authorisation — Procedure — Statement of position by the Commission — Status of ‘new active substance’ — Concept of ‘actionable measure’’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission setting out its position as to the steps to be taken in response to the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 51-58, 60, 61)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09 P Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2009 finding, in the context of the procedure for granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Lunivia’, produced by the appellant, that the active substance ‘eszopiclone’, which it contains, does not constitute a new active substance within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Concept of actionable measure.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings

—

Intervention

—

Conditions of admissibility

—

Interest in the result of the case

—

Meaning

—

Need for a direct and existing interest

—

Dispute concerning the lawfulness of a Commission decision finding there to be a cartel and imposing a fine

—

Lack of direct interest of the customers of undertakings participating in the cartel

—

Ability of a customer to seek compensation for harm caused by the cartel

—

Customer who has made an application for access to the documents of the administrative procedure concerning the cartel

—

Lack of relevance (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see paras 10, 12-16, 23-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-28/11 Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission , by which the General Court rejected the application for leave to intervene made by Schenker AG — Interest in the result of the case — Dispute relating to an application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Schenker AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Burden of proof (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 42, 43)

2. Union law — Principles — Notion of equal treatment — Limits (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21) (see para. 53)

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Obligation to take account of the actual impact on the market — Scope (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, point 1 A) (see paras 63-65, 69)

4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Taking account of the size of the market at issue — Non-mandatory element (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, point 1 A) (see paras 66, 67, 77)

5. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 88)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Non-imposition or reduction of the fine in return for the cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Unilateral statements which are not substantiated by sufficient evidence — Evidence already at the Commission’s disposal — Not included (Council regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 89, 91, 95, 97)

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission Decision finding an infringement of the competition rules and imposing a fine (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 94-97)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission , by which the General Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV and Otis Elevator Company are ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C‑1/11 SA)

‛Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union’

Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union — Need for the Court’s authorisation — Application based on a decision of a national court with the same subject-matter as an order of a Court of the European Union — Enforceable order — Refusal of authorisation (Art. 280 TFEU; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 1; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 22, 29-31)

Re:

Protocol on privileges and immunities — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the Commission in respect of sums owing to the European Union by the Italian Republic and, in the alternative, in respect of movable property belonging to the European Union held in the Italian Republic — Waiver of the Commission’s immunity — Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The application for a garnishee order is dismissed.

2. Mr Luigi Marcuccio and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C‑1/11 SA)

‛Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union’

Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union — Need for the Court’s authorisation — Application based on a decision of a national court with the same subject-matter as an order of a Court of the European Union — Enforceable order — Refusal of authorisation (Art. 280 TFEU; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 1; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 22, 29-31)

Re:

Protocol on privileges and immunities — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the Commission in respect of sums owing to the European Union by the Italian Republic and, in the alternative, in respect of movable property belonging to the European Union held in the Italian Republic — Waiver of the Commission’s immunity — Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The application for a garnishee order is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case C‑554/11 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included — Particulars to be taken into account for the purposes of taxation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 145(1)) (see paras 13-18, 24, 25)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2012 in Case C‑554/11 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission.

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV to the European Commission in Case C‑554/11 P are fixed at EUR 2 500.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case C‑554/11 P-DEP)

‛Taxation of costs’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included — Particulars to be taken into account for the purposes of taxation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 145(1)) (see paras 13-18, 24, 25)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2012 in Case C‑554/11 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission.

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV to the European Commission in Case C‑554/11 P are fixed at EUR 2 500.