do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-318/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest — Article 87 EC — Concept of ‘aid’ — Article 88 EC — Concept of ‘new aid’ — Article 10 EC — Duty of loyal cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 1 and 14 — Lawfulness of a recovery order — Principle of legal certainty — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, company with share capital, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax exemption








C_2012049EN.01000302.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/3





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA v European Commission
(Case C-318/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Article 10 EC - Duty of loyal cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Principle of legal certainty - Duty to state reasons)
2012/C 49/05
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina, C. Croff and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-189/03 ASM Brescia SpA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought 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 main appeal and the cross-appeal.










2.


Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
Case T-659/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Commission/OHMI — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, logistics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012058EN.01001402.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/14





Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Commission/OHMI — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)
(Case T-659/11)
2012/C 58/27
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Berenboom, A. Joachimowicz, and M. Isgour, lawyers, J. Samnadda, and F. Wilman, Agents)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in case R 1991/2010-4;










—


Declare therefore invalid the Community trademark No 6112403 registered on 17 October 2008 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in classes 36, 37, 44 and 45; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations’ in the colours ‘yellow, light blue, blue’, for services in classes 36, 37, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 6112403

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and (h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 ter (1) of the Paris Convention in so far as the Community trade mark (‘CTM’) has been registered, although its registration falls within the scope of prohibition laid down in those provisions. The contested decision also violates Article 7(1)(g) in so far as such a registration would deceive the public by making them believe that the products and services for which the CTM is registered are approved or endorsed by the European Union or one of its institutions.
Commission Opinion of 21 December 2011 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Penly EPR reactor (unit 3), located in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, environmental protection, nuclear safety, public health, radioactive waste








C_2011374EN.01000101.xml










22.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/1





COMMISSION OPINION
of 21 December 2011
relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Penly EPR reactor (unit 3), located in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
(Only the French text is authentic)
2011/C 374/01
The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation.
On 15 April 2011, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Penly EPR reactor (unit 3), located in France.
On the basis of these data and the complementary information provided by French Government representatives at the meeting of the Group of Experts on 28 and 29 September 2011, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:






1.


The distance from the site to the nearest Member States is 106 km for the United Kingdom and 139 km for Belgium.










2.


Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents are not liable to cause an exposure of the population of another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health.










3.


Solid radioactive waste will be temporarily stored on site before its transfer to disposal facilities authorised by the French Government. Spent fuel elements will be temporarily stored on site, awaiting their transport to the reprocessing plant at La Hague.










4.


In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health.




In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Penly EPR reactor (unit 3), located in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in a radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2011.


For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission
Case C-319/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest — Article 87 EC — Concept of ‘aid’ — Article 88 EC — Concept of ‘new aid’ — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 1 and 14 — Lawfulness of a recovery order — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, company with share capital, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax exemption








C_2012049EN.01000401.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/4





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission
(Case C-319/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons)
2012/C 49/06
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: ACEA SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, A. Giardina and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents), Iride SpA, formerly AEM Spa (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, T. Ubaldi and A. Santa Maria, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-297/02 ACEA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought 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 main appeal and the cross-appeal.










2.


Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.










4.


Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
Case C-271/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Scope — Open pension funds — Limitation on the investment of capital assets outside the Member State concerned — Proportionality)
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, investment abroad, restriction on competition, supplementary pension








C_2012049EN.01000301.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-271/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Scope - Open pension funds - Limitation on the investment of capital assets outside the Member State concerned - Proportionality)
2012/C 49/04
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Szpunar, M. Jarosz and P. Kucharski, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC — Pension funds forming part of a national system of compulsory affiliation and based on the capitalisation system — National rules limiting and discouraging the investment by such funds of capital assets outside Poland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Third Chamber):






1.


Declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 143, 136(3) and 136a(2) of the Law of 28 August 1997 on the organisation and operation of pension funds (Ustawa o organizacji i funkcjonowaniu funduszy emerytalnych), as amended, in that they limit investments by Polish open pension funds in the other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
Case C-658/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2011-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Mauritius, agreement (EU), common foreign and security policy, development aid, infringement of EU law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, piracy, police cooperation, transfer of prisoners, warships








C_2012058EN.01000601.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/6





Action brought on 21 December 2011 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-658/11)
2012/C 58/08
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer; (1)











—


order that the effects of Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 be maintained until it is replaced;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.
The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters,.police cooperation, and development cooperation, covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in accordance with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU.
For this reason the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.
Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at the stages of negotiation and conclusion of the Agreement.
Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.


(1)  OJ L 254, p. 1