do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission (State aid — Wholesale electricity market — Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — New aid — Private investor test)
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy distribution, public sector, restriction on competition








C_2012089EN.01002001.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/20





Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission
(Joined Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09) (1)

(State aid - Wholesale electricity market - Favourable terms granted by a Hungarian public undertaking to certain power generators under power purchase agreements - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Private investor test)
2012/C 89/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Budapesti Erőmű Zrt (Budapest (Hungary)) (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by M. Powell, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and also, in Case T-182/09, by A. Hegyi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-80/06 and T-182/09, by N. Khan, L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, and also, in Case T-80/06, by V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in Case T-80/06, for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified to Hungary by letter of 9 November 2005, to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in relation to State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs, and, in Case T-182/09, for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Budapesti Erőmű Zrt to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
Case C-73/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, foreign national, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, penalty








C_2012118EN.01001602.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi
(Case C-73/12)
2012/C 118/26
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Ahmed Ettaghi

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?










2.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?










3.


Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Case F-19/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification








C_2012138EN.01003402.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/34






Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-19/12)
(2012/C 138/79)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s note concerning the applicant’s administrative status and for compensation for damage.

Form of order sought







—


Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the undated note, bearing in the top right hand corner of the first of its two pages, the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011)217354 — 28/02/2011’ (sic), the details and content of which first came to the applicant’s attention on a date not before 6 April 2011;










—


In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 15 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the note of 28 February 2011;










—


Annul the note of 14 September, received by the applicant on a date not before 20 October 2011;










—


Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the note of 28 February 2011 and the note of 14 September 2011, in the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-76/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, equality before the law, tax exemption, tax on capital








C_2012133EN.01001601.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/16





Action brought on 13 February 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-76/12)
2012/C 133/29
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by maintaining in force a tax regime which exempts from tax dividends paid by a French company to investment funds established in France, whereas the same dividends distributed to investment funds established in another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area are subject to a withholding tax, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission challenges the difference in the tax treatment of dividends paid by French companies to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) depending on whether those UCITS are resident or non-resident in France. One of the elements of the tax regime applied to UCITS resident in France is the fact that the latter are not subject to tax in respect of dividends distributed to them by French companies. By contrast, pursuant to Article 119a (2) of the French General Tax Code (Code général des impôts), a withholding tax is applied to dividends distributed by French companies to non-resident UCITS. The Commission takes the view that the differing tax treatment applied to resident and to non-resident UCITS, although they are in an objectively comparable situation irrespective of their State of residence, constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of capital, and that that obstacle is not justified by the effectiveness of fiscal supervision or by the need to safeguard a balanced apportionment of the power to tax.
The Commission notes that, according to settled case-law as set out in particular in the judgments in Case C-540/07 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-10983 and Case C-284/09 Commission v Germany [2011], the Court has held that Member States which subject dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States to a tax regime which is less favourable than that applied to dividends distributed to resident companies, without that difference in treatment being justified by objectively different situations or by overriding reasons in the general interest, have failed to fulfil their obligations in respect of the free movement of capital.
Case C-74/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, foreign national, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, penalty








C_2012118EN.01001701.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam
(Case C-74/12)
2012/C 118/27
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Abd Aziz Tam

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?










2.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?










3.


Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Case C-75/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, foreign national, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, penalty








C_2012118EN.01001702.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel
(Case C-75/12)
2012/C 118/28
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Majali Abdel

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?










2.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?










3.


Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Case F-24/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2012 — Wagner-Leclercq v Council
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of staff, assistant, promotion








C_2012138EN.01003903.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/39






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2012 — Wagner-Leclercq v Council
(Case F-24/09) (1)

(2012/C 138/93)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 47.
Case T-601/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, Internet, State aid, control of State aid, game of chance, tax rebate








C_2012109EN.01001302.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/13





Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
(Case T-601/11 R)
(Interim measures - State aid - Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
2012/C 109/30
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and C. Barslev, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 6499 final of 20 September 2011 on the measure No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-66/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council
Date: 2012-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01002402.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/24





Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council
(Case T-66/12)
2012/C 109/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension;










—


Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging






—


that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified;














2.


Second plea in law, alleging






—


that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights;








The second applicant relies on two additional pleas in law, alleging that:






—


the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and










—


the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union.