ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 18 November 2022 — LG and Others v Commission

(Case T-730/22)

(2023/C 35/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: LG and seven other applicants (represented by: A. Sigal and M. Teder, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant has acted unlawfully under Article 9(4) of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223, (2) by not sending the applicants reasonably detailed and clear fact statements that would clarify whether and how the applicants’ actions have, in OLAF’s views, harmed the interests of the European Union, and not providing the applicants an additional opportunity to comment on such fact statements; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act by not providing the applicants, who have been named as persons concerned in an OLAF investigation, a meaningful opportunity to comment on the facts concerning them, in accordance with Article 9(4) and Article 9(b)(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that OLAF has failed to act in accordance with the principle of good administration by not disclosing, with the statement of facts provided to the applicants, the preliminary allegations against the applicants that would allow them to assess the relevance of the stated facts and to comment on such facts.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Mission v Commission

(Case T-700/22)

(2023/C 35/82)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Mission — Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Action brought on 17 September 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-579/22)

(2023/C 45/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Johnston, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s Decision, set out in a letter of 6 July 2022 (‘the Decision under Challenge’) by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 3 February 2022 brought by the applicant pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 (2) made pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (3) (‘the Taxonomy Regulation’); and,

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses a number of errors of law as to the scope of the Commission’s competence, insofar as the Commission disregarded a number of essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation when making the Delegated Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses two manifest errors of assessment as to the scientific evidence concerning combustion of forest biomass for energy.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses several manifest errors of assessment as to the manufacture of OBCs.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge also discloses manifest errors as to the manufacture of bioplastic.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13) (the ‘Aarhus Regulation’).

(2) Delegated Regulation of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether the economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ 2021 L 442, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020, L 198, p. 13).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2022 — Quatrotec Electrónica v EUIPO — Woxter Technology (WOXTER)

(Case T-792/22)

(2023/C 45/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Quatrotec Electrónica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodríguez-Fuensalida y Carnicero, P. Ramells Higueras, A. Figuerola Moure and P. Muñoz Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Woxter Technology Co. Ltd (Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark WOXTER — EU trade mark No 3 217 031

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2022 in Case R 0323/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision;

— order the revocation of EU trade mark No 3 217 031 WOXTER (figurative mark) in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 39;

— order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/31

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Solvay v Commission

(Case T-57/01) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Market in soda ash in the Community (with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland) - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Supply agreements for an excessively long period - Fidelity rebate - Expiry of limitation period applicable to Commission power to impose fines or sanctions - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Relevant geographic market - Existence of a dominant position - Abuse of a dominant position - Right of access to the file - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Repetition of infringement - Mitigating circumstances)

2010/C 37/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Solvay SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Simont, P.-A. Foriers, G. Block, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J. Currall, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — C: Soda ash — Solvay) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 10) and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Fixes the fine imposed on Solvay SA in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — C: Soda ash — Solvay) at EUR 19 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

(1) OJ C 161, 2.6.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/40

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission

(Case T-357/02 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony - Aid for coaching, participation in fairs, cooperation and design promotion - Decision declaring the aid scheme in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises - Failure to exercise discretion - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 269/86

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-271/03) (1)

(Competition - Article 82 EC - Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany - Margin squeeze - Charges approved by the national regulatory authority for telecommunications - Leeway of the dominant undertaking)

(2008/C 128/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially, K. Quack, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, and subsequently, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, K. Mojzesowicz and S. Rating, then K. Mojzesowicz and A. Whelan, and subsequently, K. Mojzesowicz, W. Mölls and O. Weber, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Arcor AG & Co. KG (Eschborn, Germany), (represented by: initially, M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and M. Rosenthal, then M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, and subsequently, M. Klusmann, lawyers); Versatel NRW GmbH, formerly Tropolys NRW GmbH, formerly CityKom Münster GmbH Telekommunikationsservice and TeleBeL Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation Bergisches Land mbH (Essen, Germany); EWE TEL GmbH (Oldenburg, Germany); HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, formerly KomTel Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Informationsdienste mbH (Flensburg, Germany); NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH (Cologne, Germany); Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH, formerly tesion Telekommunikation GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany); and Versatel West-Deutschland GmbH, formerly Versatel Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by N. Nolte, T. Wessely and J. Tiedemann, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C 1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 — Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 3 of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders (1) Arcor AG & Co. KG and (2) Versatel NRW GmbH, EWE TEL GmbH, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH, Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH and Versatel West Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 — Socratec v Commission

(Case T-269/03) (1)

(‘Competition - Concentrations - Market in road traffic telematic systems - Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate’)

2009/C 180/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH (Regensburg) (represented by: M. Adolf and M. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially S. Rating, then A. Whelan and K. Mojzesowicz, and latterly K. Mojzesowicz and X. Lewis, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV (Waarle, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Berrisch and D.W. Hull, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Daimler AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany); Daimler Financial Services AG, formerly DaimlerChrysler Services AG (Berlin, Germany); Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany); Toll Collect GmbH (Berlin) (represented by: J. Schütze and A. von Graevenitz, lawyers); and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially C. D. Quassowski and S. Flockermann, then M. Lumma, agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein and A. Rosenfeld, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 — DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom Joint Venture) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

2. orders Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Toll Collect GmbH;

3. orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs;

4. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Knauf Gips v Commission

(Case T-52/03) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Access to the file - Single and continuous infringement - Liability - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

(2008/C 209/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Knauf Gips KG, formerly Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (Iphofen, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, and subsequently by M. Klusmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Rating, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8), or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Knauf Gips KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-85/04) (1)

(Staff Cases - Officials - Staff reporting - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure - Lawfulness of the staff reporting procedure)

(2008/C 64/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented initially by J. Mosar, then by F. Gengler and P. Georgen, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and A. Manville, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure in so far as it concerns the applicant and of the decision which adopted his career development report for that procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision adopting the career development report of Mr Guido Strack for the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/42

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council

(Case T-37/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Fisheries - Management of the fishing effort - Community fishing areas and resources - Action brought by a regional body - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 209/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Região autónoma dos Açores (Portugal) (represented initially by: M. Renouf, S. Crosby, C. Bryant, Solicitors, and H. Mercer, Barrister, and subsequently by M. Renouf, C. Bryant and H. Mercer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation (Brussels, Belgium); WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, (Gland, Switzerland); and Stichting Greenpeace Council (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Buxton, Solicitor, and D. Owen, Barrister).

Interveners in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Spain, (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

Re:

Action seeking artial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders Região autónoma dos Açores to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

4. Orders Seas at Risk VZW and WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

5. Orders Stichting Greenpeace Council to bear its own costs as incurred in the present proceedings.

6. Orders Porto de Abrigo — Organização de Produtores da Pesca CRL and GÊ-Questa — Associação de Defesa do Ambiente to bear their own costs as incurred in the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/30

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-233/04) (1)

(State aid - Directive 2001/81/EC - National measure establishing an emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides - Decision finding the aid compatible with the common market - Admissibility - Advantage - Measure lacking selective character)

(2008/C 128/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster, J. van Bakel and M. de Grave, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Intervener in support of the Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1761 final of 24 June 2003, relating to State aid N 35/2003 concerning the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1761 final of 24 June 2003 relating to State aid N 35/2003 concerning the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003 (formerly case C-388/03).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04) (1)

(State aid - Maritime transport - Subsidies paid by the Italian authorities to regional undertakings - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - New or existing aid - Duty to state reasons - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92)

2009/C 90/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants in Case T-265/04: Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA, formerly Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Adriatica di Navigazione SpA, (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsequently, lawyers)

Applicants in Case T-292/04: Caremar SpA; Toremar SpA (Leghorn (Livorno), Italy); Siremar SpA (Palermo, Italy); and Saremar SpA (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsequently, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-504/04: Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented by: S. Ravenna and A. Abate, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Caremar SpA (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G.Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsquently, lawyers) and the Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, Agent)

Re:

Annulment in part of the Commission Decision No 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar (Gruppo Tirrenia) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. In Cases T-265/04 and T-292/04, annuls Commission Decision No 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar (Gruppo Tirrenia);

2. In Case T-504/04, declares that the action has become devoid of purpose;

3. In Case T-265/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Caremar SpA, Siremar SpA, Saremar SpA and Toremar SpA;

4. In Case T-504/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA;

5. In Case T-504/04, orders the Italian Republic and Caremar to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 25.9.2004.