do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-3/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Syndicat OP 84 v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
Date: 2012-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, financial institution, interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, tax system








C_2012089EN.01001202.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Syndicat OP 84 v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR
(Case C-3/12)
2012/C 89/19
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Syndicat OP 84

Respondent: Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) venant aux droits de l’ONIFLHOR

Questions referred







1.


Must the ‘scrutiny period’ from 1 July of one year to 30 June of the following year, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Council Regulation No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) be understood as the period during which the authorities responsible for the scrutiny must inform the producer organisation of the planned inspection, and commence and complete the scrutiny procedure in its entirety on-site and on paper and communicate the results of that scrutiny, or must it be understood as the period during which only some of those procedural steps have to be carried out?










2.


Where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make it impossible to carry out effectively an inspection initiated during one scrutiny period, may the authorities — despite the absence of express provision to that effect in [Regulation No 4045/89] — carry out the scrutiny procedure during the subsequent scrutiny period, without causing the procedure to be vitiated by a defect which the organisation under scrutiny could rely on against the decision setting out the inferences to be drawn from the findings of that inspection?










3.


If the previous question falls to be answered in the negative, may the authorities, where the conduct or the shortcomings of the producer organisation make an effective scrutiny impossible, require repayment of the financial assistance received? Does such a measure constitute one of the penalties for which provision may be made pursuant to Article 6 of [Regulation No 4045/89]?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).
Case T-1/12: Action brought on 2 January 2012 — France v Commission
Date: 2012-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, capital increase, control of State aid, domestic market, loan








C_2012080EN.01002001.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/20





Action brought on 2 January 2012 — France v Commission
(Case T-1/12)
2012/C 80/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2011) 7808 final of 24 October 2011, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the restructuring aids which the French authorities proposed to grant to SeaFrance SA in the form of an increase in capital and loans granted by SNCF to SeaFrance.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found that the question whether the two loans proposed by SNCF were reasonable had to be considered together with the rescue and restructuring aid. This plea is divided into two branches based:






—


first, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly interpreted the Court’s judgment in Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235; and










—


second, in the alternative, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly applied that judgment of the Court.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found, for the sake of completeness, that the French authorities have not proved that, considered in isolation, the two loans proposed by SNCF would have been granted at a market rate. That plea is divided into two branches based on:






—


first, the fact that the Commission incorrectly excluded the two loans at issue from the application of the Commission Communication of 19 January 2008 on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates; (1) and










—


second, the fact that the Commission incorrectly found that, to be compatible with the market, the rate of the loans in question should have been around 14 %.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact when the Commission found that the restructuring aid is incompatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, interpreted in the light of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU which provides that the Treaties are not in any way to prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.






(1)  OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6.
Case F-1/12: Action brought on 2nd January 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors
Date: 2012-01-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disability insurance, financial loss, pension scheme








C_2012133EN.01002902.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/29





Action brought on 2nd January 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors
(Case F-1/12)
2012/C 133/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Subject-matter and description of the proceeding

The annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors rejecting the request for compensation for the losses suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Decision of 21 January 2011 rejecting his request for compensation for the losses suffered as a result of his retirement on invalidity pension;










—


if necessary, annul the Decision of 22 September 2011 rejecting his complaint dated 1st March 2011;










—


compensate the losses suffered;










—


order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.
Case C-4/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Danilo Tola v Ministero della Difesa
Date: 2012-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2012080EN.01001202.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2012 — Danilo Tola v Ministero della Difesa
(Case C-4/12)
2012/C 80/17
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Danilo Tola

Defendant: Ministero della Difesa
Following the withdrawal of the reference for a preliminary ruling on 5 January 2012, by order of 18 January 2012 the Court of Justice removed the case from the register.