do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-304/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Alumina v Council
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, World Trade Organisation, anti-dumping duty, import, legality








C_2011226EN.01002902.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/29





Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Alumina v Council
(Case T-304/11)
2011/C 226/58
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alumina d.o.o (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the anti-dumping duty imposed on the applicant by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
First, the applicant considers that the anti-dumping duty fixed in the contested regulation is unlawful since the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic regulation. In the construction of the normal value, the defendant has used a profit margin of 58,89 % calculated on the basis of the applicant’s non-representative domestic sales. Use of such a profit margin is incompatible with Article 2 of the basic regulation. The construction of the normal value is affected by a fundamental contradiction since the method used by the defendant to construct the normal value obtains the same result as if the normal value had been based on the prices of the non-representative domestic sales. Such a method is contrary to the settled practice of the Commission and the Council and to the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice. Moreover, the chosen profit margin of 58,89 % is not ‘reasonable’. Lastly, the defendant is wrong to rely on case-law stemming from WTO rulings to apply a profit margin which is not ‘reasonable’ in the construction of the normal value applicable to the applicant’s exports.
Secondly, the applicant also considers that the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of the provisions of Article 2(6) of the basic regulation in that the applicant’s domestic sales were not made in the ‘ordinary course of trade’ within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation.
Case T-235/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Bavaria v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands beer market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Proof of the infringement — Access to the file — Fines — Principle of equal treatment — Reasonable period)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), beverage industry, competition law, fine, unlawful agreement








C_2011226EN.01002301.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/23





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Bavaria v European Commission
(Case T-235/07) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands beer market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Proof of the infringement - Access to the file - Fines - Principle of equal treatment - Reasonable period)
2011/C 226/45
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Bavaria NV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented initially by O. Brouwer, D. Mes, A. Stoffer, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, A. Steffens and P. Schepens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A Nijenhuis, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents, and M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Netherlands beer market) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Bavaria NV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands;










2.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Bavaria in Article 3(c) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 20 712 375;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders Bavaria to pay two-thirds of its own costs and of those of the European Commission;










5.


Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
Case T-191/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC Foret v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Fines — Attenuating circumstances)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002101.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/21





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC Foret v Commission
(Case T-191/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Fines - Attenuating circumstances)
2011/C 226/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FMC Foret, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Seimetz, lawyer, and C. Stanbrook QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FMC Foret SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case C-10/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions — Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, gift, head office, infringement of EU law, research and development, research body, tax relief, teaching








C_2011232EN.01000801.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-10/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions - Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)
(2011/C 232/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — National rules which make the granting of the tax advantage provided for donations to research and public-education establishments subject to the condition that the beneficiary of the donation is established within the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by authorising the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.