do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-210/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, means of communication








C_2012209EN.01001201.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/12





Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
(Case T-210/12)
2012/C 209/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging essentially that the European Commission erred in law when it failed to include in its assessment aid granted to TV 2 Danmark A/S through 8 regional TV 2 broadcasting stations.
In this regard, the applicant submits that the broadcasts provided free of charge by the regional broadcasting stations, which are financed by licence fees, to TV 2 Danmark A/S constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, it is recalled that according to the public service licence issued to TV 2 Danmark A/S by the Minster of Culture, TV 2 Danmark A/S retains the advertising revenue generated by the ‘advertisement slots’ in the regional broadcast.
The applicant further alleges that by disregarding the State aid provided to TV 2 Danmark A/S through the regional broadcasting stations, the defendant has not considered the financial situation of TV 2 Danmark A/S in the light of the full spectrum of the revenues of such.
Due to this failure, the applicant alleges that the entire assessment made by the defendant of the restructuring plan is based on erroneous assumptions concerning TV 2 Danmark A/S’s financial situation. Therefore, the applicant alleges that the defendant has not been in a position to confirm that the conditions laid down in its own Guidelines (1) are met.
Consequently, the applicant alleges that the defendant has failed to comply with the criteria defined by the Commission itself in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and ultimately in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, when it assessed the rescue and restructuring aid to TV 2 Danmark A/S.


(1)  Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)
Case C-246/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v European Commission
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU investment, competitiveness, financing method, investment promotion, project of common interest, single market, trans-European network, transport planning








C_2012200EN.01000901.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/9





Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v European Commission
(Case C-246/12 P)
2012/C 200/16
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigia AE (represented by: I. Drosos, lawyer. V. Karagiannis, lawyer)

Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court in Case Τ-391/08.










—


annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8(2), 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the initially contested Commission decision of 2 July 2008:‘On the measures C 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards [Ellinika Nafpigia A.E]’.










—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measures Ε12b, Ε13a, Ε13b, Ε14, Ε16 and Ε17 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.










—


in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measure Ε7 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.










—


order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs both in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 346 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the second ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 348 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the third ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erroneously rejected its claims concerning the infringement of its procedural rights by the initially contested decision, an error which means that the judgment under appeal must be set aside to the extent set out in the appeal.
Case T-208/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Shoes with red aglets)
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01001102.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/11





Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Shoes with red aglets)
(Case T-208/12)
2012/C 209/19
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 February 2012 in Case R 1552/2011-1;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Other mark relating to shoes with laces at the end of which are red aglets, for goods in Class 25 — Application No 9 130 361

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
Case C-240/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Arab Emirates, export of waste, harbour installation, storage of waste








C_2012243EN.01000501.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais
(Case C-240/12)
2012/C 243/08
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Party to the main proceedings

EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais

Questions referred







1.


Where waste is shipped by vessel from an EU Member State (in this case France) to a State in which the OECD-Decision does not apply (in this case the United Arab Emirates), is there ‘transit’ within the meaning of the former (1) and the new (2) Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) if under way the vessel puts in at a port of another EU Member State (in this case the Port of Rotterdam)?










2.


Does it make any difference to the answer to question 1 if:






—


there is storage and/or transhipment of that waste at that port and/or










—


that waste is taken ashore and/or










—


that waste is declared for import at customs?










(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (former WSR) (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (new WSR) (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1)
Case T-216/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, economic support, redemption








C_2012243EN.01001901.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/19





Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
(Case T-216/12)
2012/C 243/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haïfa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haïfa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


admit this action for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


declare it to be admissible, and










—


primarily, declare the action well-founded and annul the decision for compensation of the Commission, Directorate General of Information Society and Media, contained in its letter of 13 March 2012, directed against TECHNION;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-657/11 Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission. (1)



(1)  OJ 2012 C 73, p. 28.
Case C-239/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission
Date: 2012-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dual-use good, export (EU), export monitoring, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear technology








C_2012200EN.01000801.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/8





Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-239/12 P)
2012/C 200/14
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:






—


the Order of the General Court dated 28.2.12 is quashed










—


it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose










—


the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application










—


the Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs in the General Court below, including those of making representations upon the Court's invitation.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant bases his appeal on the following two pleas in law:






—


that the General Court erred when it failed to:






—


hear from the Advocate-General, and/or;










—


invite representations from the appellant as to whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose, and/or;










—


open the oral procedure on the question of whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose.














—


the General Court erred in finding that the action for annulment was not capable of conferring material advantage upon the appellant.