do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-33/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruits — Non-compliance with payment deadlines — Period of 24 months — Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded — Key controls — Principle of proportionality — Principle of ne bis in idem — Extrapolation of the findings of default)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, General Court (EU), Greece, action for annulment (EU), closing of accounts, management accounting








C_2009180EN.01004402.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/44





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-33/07) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruits - Non-compliance with payment deadlines - Period of 24 months - Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded - Key controls - Principle of proportionality - Principle of ne bis in idem - Extrapolation of the findings of default)
2009/C 180/81
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of olive oil, dried grapes, citrus fruit and financial control.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
Case C-521/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Agreement on the European Economic Area — Article 40 — Free movement of capital — Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies — Deduction at source — Exemption — Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community — Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Iceland, Norway, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, anti-discriminatory measure, free movement of capital, judgment of the Court (EU), tax exemption, tax on investment income, tax system








C_2009180EN.01000701.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-521/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Article 40 - Free movement of capital - Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies - Deduction at source - Exemption - Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community - Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)
2009/C 180/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and R. Lyal, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 40 EEA — Dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends not exempted under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies

Operative part of the judgment







1.


By not exempting dividends paid by Netherlands companies to companies established in Iceland or Norway from deduction at source of the tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies or companies of other Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.










2.


The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.
Case T-301/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AEM v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Existing aid or new aid — Article 87(3)(c) EC)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: General Court (EU), Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), public service, tax exemption








C_2009180EN.01003901.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/39





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AEM v Commission
(Case T-301/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Existing aid or new aid - Article 87(3)(c) EC)
2009/C 180/70
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: AEM SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, C. Croff, A. Santa Maria and G. Pizzonia, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Caia, V. Salvadori, N. Pisani and F. Capelli, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AEM SpA to pay its costs and those of the Commission;










3.


Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
Prior notification of a concentration — (Case COMP/M.5505 — Celesio/pharmexx) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, logistics, marketing, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, provision of services, retail selling








C_2009132EN.01001801.xml










11.6.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5505 — Celesio/pharmexx)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 132/11






1.


On 3 June 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Celesio AG (‘Celesio’, Germany), controlled by Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH (‘Haniel’, Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking pharmexx GmbH (‘pharmexx’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Haniel: pharmaceutical wholesale and pharmacies, trading and recycling of stainless steel scrap, office, sales of plant and warehouse equipment, supply of washroom hygiene, textile services and mats, retail,










—


Celesio: pharmaceutical wholesale and retail, logistic, distribution and other services provider to pharmaceutical companies,










—


pharmexx: provider of temporary employment services, project based marketing and sales services and corresponding software solutions to pharmaceutical companies.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 2 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5505 — Celesio/pharmexx, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case C-212/09: Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, company law, energy distribution, gas, investment, marketing, petroleum, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2009180EN.01003502.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/35





Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-212/09)
2009/C 180/61
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, M. Teles Romão and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by maintaining the State’s special rights and those of other public bodies or the Portuguese public-sector in GALP Energia, SGPS S.A., the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 EC and 43 EC.










—


Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the Portuguese legislation, the State holds golden shares in GALP. The State has the right to appoint the Chairman of the Board of Directors. In matters within its competence, company resolutions are subject to its approval.
Any resolutions which seek to alter the articles of association, authorise the entering into joint contracts between companies, stipulating a controlling company or joint control, or which may in any way endanger the supply of oil, gas or derivatives thereof to the country, are subject to the State’s approval.
The Commission considers that both the State’s right to appoint a director with powers to approve resolutions and its right of veto in significant corporate actions severely restrict direct investment and portfolio investment.
Those special rights of the State constitute State measures since the golden shares are not the result of the normal application of company law.
Secondary Community law does not allow the State special rights in retailers of oil and of petroleum products. GALP has no responsibility for guaranteeing supply. The State sought to make GALP a company whose centre of decision-making is in Portugal. In any event, the Portuguese State has failed to comply with the principle of proportionality since the measures in question are not apt to ensure the attainment of the objectives pursued and go beyond what is necessary in order to attain them.
Case C-16/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Republic of Latvia) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Active matrix liquid crystal devices)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic equipment, interpretation of the law, iron and steel industry, judgment of the Court (EU), screen








C_2009180EN.01001301.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Republic of Latvia) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-16/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Active matrix liquid crystal devices)
2009/C 180/21
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Schenker SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Active matrix liquid crystal device (LCD) — Classification in heading 8528 21 90 or 9013 80 20 of the Combined Nomenclature — Whether an article has or not the essential characteristics of a complete or finished product.

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as not applying, as at 29 December 2004, to active matrix liquid crystal devices (LCD) principally made up of the following elements:






—


two glass plates;










—


a layer of liquid crystal inserted between the two plates;










—


vertical and horizontal signal drivers;










—


backlight;










—


inverter providing high-voltage power for backlight;




and






—


control block — data transmission interface (control PCB or PWB) to ensure sequential transmission of data to each pixel (dot) of the LCD unit using specific technology — LVDS (low-voltage differential signalling).






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case T-309/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Acegas v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: General Court (EU), Italy, action for annulment (EU), loan, public service, tariff preference, tax exemption








C_2009180EN.01003902.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/39





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Acegas v Commission
(Case T-309/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
2009/C 180/71
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: F. Devescovi, F. Ferletic, L. Daniele, F. Spitareli and S. Gobbato, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Acegas-APS SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
Case T-222/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Existing aid or new aid — Article 86(2) EC)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: General Court (EU), Italy, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid system, common market, public service, tax exemption, tax system








C_2009180EN.01004102.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/41





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-222/04) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Existing aid or new aid - Article 86(2) EC)
2009/C 180/75
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented: initially, by I. Braguglia and, subsequently, by R. Adam and I. Bruni, Agents, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002 (formerly Case C-290/02).
Case C-546/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/60/EC — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, financing, judgment of the Court (EU), limitation of legal proceedings, money laundering, terrorism








C_2009180EN.01002302.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/23





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-546/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2009/C 180/39
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and M. Sundén, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of that directive;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
Case T-67/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge — Earlier Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), financial market, information, trade-mark law








C_2009180EN.01004801.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/48





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)
(Case T-67/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark InvestHedge - Earlier Community figurative mark HEDGE INVEST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 180/88
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Reed, Barrister, and G. Crofton Martin, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hedge Invest SpA (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2007 (Case R 148/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hedge Invest SpA and Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.