do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-379/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances — Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: greenhouse gas, harmonisation of standards, tradeable emission permit








C_2012217EN.01002301.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/23





Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission
(Case T-379/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 - Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances - Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissible)
2012/C 217/49
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisberg, Germany); Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Salzgitter Flachstaht Gmbh (Salzgitter, Germany); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisberg); and voestalpine Stahl GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Hermann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH, Rogesa — Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Salzgitter Flachstaht Gmbh, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, and voestalpine Stahl GmbH are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-241/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Versalis v Commission
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: exchange of information, fine, price agreement, rubber industry, trade information, unlawful agreement








C_2012227EN.01002801.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/28





Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Versalis v Commission
(Case T-241/12)
2012/C 227/48
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant submits that the Court should:






—


annul the contested measure by which the Commission held that the necessary conditions were present for reopening the procedure for imposing a penalty on Versalis SpA and Eni SpA, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the European Commission of 23 April 2012 (D/2012/042050, entitled: COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Re-adoption) by which Versalis SpA was informed of the Commission’s decision to proceed with the adoption of a new statement of objections and a new infringement decision which will impose a fine on that company, in connection with Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber. That letter follows on from the judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, by which the General Court annulled the part of the infringement decision concerning the charge against the applicant — and, jointly and severally with that company, against Eni — relating to the aggravating circumstance of repeat infringements, leading to a recalculation of the fine imposed.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
By its first and only plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacked competence to reopen the procedure for imposing a penalty on it with a view to the adoption of the new infringement decision. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s power to impose penalties on Versalis SpA in connection with the subject-matter of Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber came to an end following the adoption of the decision of 29 November 2006 (Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final), as annulled and altered by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, at present under appeal before the Court of Justice.
Case T-381/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Eurofer v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission quotas from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmark to be applied for the calculation of the allocation of emission quotas — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory instrument containing implementation measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: greenhouse gas, harmonisation of standards, tradeable emission permit








C_2012217EN.01002401.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/24





Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Eurofer v Commission
(Case T-381/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission quotas from 2013 - Commission decision determining the product benchmark to be applied for the calculation of the allocation of emission quotas - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory instrument containing implementation measures - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 217/50
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene of Euroalliages.










3.


Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case F-137/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2012 — Dergam v European Commission
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: occupational safety, radiation protection, servant (EU)








C_2012209EN.01001402.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/14





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2012 — Dergam v European Commission
(Case F-137/11)
2012/C 209/25
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.