ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-589/14)

(2015/C 073/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that in maintaining provisions under which: — as regards interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) is subject to the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium benefits from an exemption from that tax, and — as regards interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, the interest is subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas that interest is exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that various provisions of the Royal Decree implementing the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992 make possible exemptions from withholding tax payable on interest subject to conditions that are not compatible with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties, namely Articles 56 and 63 TFEU.

First, as regards the interest payable on unsecured debts, an investment company established in another Member State of the European Union or a State belonging to the EEA would be subject the payment of withholding tax on that interest, whereas an investment company established in Belgium would benefit from an exemption from that tax.

Second, as regards the interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities, that interest would be subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the Union or a State belonging to the EEA, whereas such interest would be exempt from withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an investment company in Belgium.
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/16

Appeal brought on 2 September 2014 by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-541/11: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-414/14 P)

(2015/C 198/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Micael Gulbenkian

By order of 26 February 2015 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/6

Appeal brought on 3 July 2014 by Asos plc against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2014 in Case T-647/11: Asos plc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-320/14 P)

(2015/C 127/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Asos plc (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor, A. Lykiardopoulos QC, A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Roger Maier

By order of 13 January 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Asos plc to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/15

Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-40/14: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

(Case C-32/15 P)

(2015/C 089/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— quash the Order of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in case T-40/14, in so far as it dismisses the Appellants' action as inadmissible;

— declare that the Appellants' action is admissible, or alternatively that it is admissible for the period starting on 10th January 2009;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants rely on four pleas in law. In the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed the application brought by the Appellants for, in essence the compensation tor the losses incurred by them that flow from the wrongful termination of the Power Purchase Agreement ( PPA ) in application of unlawful Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C-41/05 (1). The General Court found the Appellants' action time-barred and dismissed their application as inadmissible.

By their first plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (the Rules of Procedure ) providing an extension on account of distance to time-limits does not apply to the Appellants' application although the reading of the Treaties, Statute of the Court of Justice (the Statute ) and Rules of Procedure shows Article 102(2) applies to the limitation period laid down in the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute.

By their second plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law in the application of Article 268 and 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU ( TFEU ) when requiring the Appellants to invoke the recurrent nature of their damage in their initial request.

By their third plea, the Appellants respectfully raise the General Court's failure to state reasons why the case-law referred to by the applicants to support the recurrent nature of their damage is not comparable to their situation, although the applicants had provided an extensive demonstration.

By their fourth plea, the Appellants respectfully note that the General Court commits an error of law when it rejected the Appellant's argumentation that their damage is continuous on the basis that the Commission's decision is still under review.

(1) OJ L 225, p. 53.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

(Case C-7/15)

(2015/C 127/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Essen

Party to the main proceedings

Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

Question referred

Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 9 September 2007 to 24 May 2009 inclusive, in particular on the basis of the Council Decisions of 29 May 2006 (2006/379/EC) (2), 28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC) (3), 20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC) (4), 15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5), and 26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6), invalid?

(1) OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2) OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21.

(3) OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

(4) OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

(5) OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

(6) OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/20

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

(Case C-54/15 P)

(2015/C 118/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Trefilerías Quijano SA in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-576/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-427/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/42

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Minister for Finance

(Case C-81/15)

(2015/C 138/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Question referred

May Directive 92/12/EEC (1), in the light of the general principles of EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and proportionality thereof, be interpreted, in a case such as this, as prohibiting the implementation of legal provisions of a Member State, such as Article 108 of the Greek Customs Code, according to which the authorised warehousekeeper of goods moved from the tax warehouse thereof under a duty suspension arrangement, which departed the arrangements in question irregularly through smuggling, may be declared as jointly liable for the payment of administrative fines, on the ground of smuggling, regardless of whether the warehousekeeper had, at the time when the infringement was committed, possession of the goods, on the basis of the rules of private law, and, furthermore, regardless of whether the perpetrators of the infringement involved in that movement had concluded a particular contractual relationship with the authorised warehousekeeper from which they can be seen to have acted as agents of the authorised warehousekeeper?

(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/14

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM

(Case C-62/15 P)

(2015/C 146/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: DTL Corporación, S.L. (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’;

— order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of EU law by the General Court: The Fourth Board of Appeal changed, in its decision of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, the grounds for the decision of the Opposition Division for rejecting Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’ in respect of Classes 9 and 37. The Opposition Division had based that rejection on the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the goods of the opposing mark in Class 7. For its part, the Board of Appeal upheld the rejection, but on the ground of the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the services of the opposing mark in Class 40. In so doing, the Board of Appeal infringed Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark because the services of the opposing mark in Class 40 had never been put forward in opposition to the goods and services of the trade mark applied for in Classes 9 and 37 (although they were put forward against the services in other classes). In addition, the decision infringed Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark since the party now appealing was not invited to submit observations on that change to the grounds. The judgment under appeal maintains that the proceedings were legally correct, thereby infringing EU law (Articles 64(1) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark).

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/17

Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 December 2014 in Case T-400/10 Hamas v Council

(Case C-79/15 P)

(2015/C 146/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-400/10;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and

— order the applicant in Case T-400/10 to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law.

First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the use by the Council of information in the public domain for the periodic review of the measures adopted.

Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in not concluding that the decisions of the competent authorities of the United States of America on the one hand and of the United Kingdom on the other constituted a sufficient basis to include Hamas on the list.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

(Case C-92/15)

(2015/C 155/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sven Mathys

Defendant: De Grave Antverpia NV

Question referred

Is Article 3 of the Belgian Law of 5 May 1936 on inland waterway chartering compatible with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 96/75/EC (1), in so far as a person who is not the owner or operator of an inland waterway vessel concludes a contract for the carriage of goods on inland waterways as carrier and is not acting as an agent (‘charterer’) within the meaning of Article 3 WBB?

(1) Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community (OJ 1996, L 304, p. 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/18

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case C-139/15 P)

(2015/C 155/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission;

— refer the case back to the General Court for determination, and

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12. By its judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to certain projects.

The Commission relies on two grounds of appeal. Primarily, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that the Commission had to adopt the decision on financial corrections within a period determined on the basis of the basic legislative act in force at the date of the hearing between the Commission and the Member State. In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that that the period imposed on the Commission for the adoption of the decision on financial corrections is a mandatory period, disregard for which constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement which invalidates a decision adopted outside that period.
The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.
2.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, in accordance with the case-law laid down in Bruno and Others, must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, as is the case of Article 3(4) of Real Decreto 625/1985 of 2 April (Rules on unemployment benefits), to which rule 4 of paragraph 1 of the seventh additional provision of the Ley General de Seguridad Social refers — in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work (work carried out only three days a week) — disregards, for the purposes of calculation of the duration of unemployment benefit, days not worked even though contributions were paid in respect of those days, with the resulting reduction in the duration of the benefit granted?
3.

In their appeal the appellants raise three pleas in law against the contested judgment: (a) Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 7(2) and (3) and 13(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1), because the General Court concluded in paras 33-64 of the contested judgment that the Commission was not obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure and, that it lawfully completed its investigation during the preliminary procedure. (b) Infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, because the General Court concluded in paras 65-78 of the challenged judgment that the Commission decision was sufficiently reasoned, despite a lack of economic data which did not permit the accuracy of the calculations made by the Commission to be determined. (c) Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, because the General Court concluded that the joint assessment of the notified measures by the Commission was lawful, despite the lack of a market definition, and in view of the erroneous application of the notions of ‘similarity’ and ‘economic context’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/3

Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)

(Case C-138/15 P)

(2015/C 190/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: G. Morgan, Solicitor, K. Bacon, Barrister and E.S. Mackenzie, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

— Annul the decision of the EMA, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the appellant’s application for a marketing authorization;

— Order the EMA to pay the costs of the Appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance one ground of appeal, which is that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1). Three distinct errors of law are alleged. First, it is alleged that the General Court misinterpreted Article 8(3) read together with Article 8(1), in that it failed to appreciate that a second similar orphan product authorised under an Article 8(3) derogation cannot attract the reward of market exclusivity that is provided for the first orphan product under Article 8(1).

Second, it erred in concluding that its interpretation of Article 8 does not have the effect of extending the market exclusively attaching to the first product.

Third, the General Court incorrectly described and thus failed properly to address the appellant’s alternative case in respect of the original ground for annulment, which was that even if the second product did in principle benefit from its own period of market exclusivity, that exclusivity should not operate to exclude from the market a generic version of the first product.

The appellant requests that the Court of Justice give final judgment annulling the contested decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1.