do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-588/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Telefónica S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-430/11 Telefónica v Commission
Date: 2013-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, right to justice








C_2014024EN.01001001.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/10





Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Telefónica S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-430/11 Telefónica v Commission
(Case C-588/13 P)
2014/C 24/18
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Telefónica S.A. (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


declare the action for annulment in Case T-430/11 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the substance of the dispute;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings relating to admissibility at both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


The General Court erred in law in interpreting the last phrase of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court errs in law in stating that decisions regarding State aid schemes, such as the contested decision, require implementing measures within the meaning of the new Treaty provision.










2.


The General Court infringed European Union law in interpreting the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions brought against decisions declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible. In particular,






—


the General Court wrongly interpreted the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ and distorted the facts in applying it to the transactions carried out by the applicant after 21 December 2007;










—


the General Court also erred in law as regards the transactions before 21 December 2007 in interpreting the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ as developed in the case-law.














3.


The General Court erred in law in adopting a decision that infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The contested order upholds a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the applicant from having proper access, and without needing to resort to infringing the law, to the preliminary reference procedure in order to call in question the contested decision.
2014/95/EU: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund
Date: 2013-11-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, Czechia, Germany, aid to disaster victims, commitment of expenditure, fund (EU), general budget (EU), natural disaster, payment appropriation








L_2014048EN.01000901.xml










19.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 48/9








            DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
         
of 20 November 2013
         
on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund
(2014/95/EU)


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.












(2)


The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.












(3)


Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.












(4)


Romania has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning drought and forest fires.












(5)


Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic have submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning a flooding disaster.





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 400 519 089 in commitment and payment appropriations.


Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Strasbourg, 20 November 2013.


For the European Parliament


The President

M. SCHULZ
            



For the Council


The President

V. LEŠKEVIČIUS
            





(1)  
            OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
Case T-617/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
Date: 2013-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, heat pump, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01003502.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/35





Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
(Case T-617/13)
2014/C 24/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0002

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.