do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-1/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 2 January 2014 — KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV v Ministerraad Intervener: Belgacom NV
Date: 2014-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, equal treatment, telephone charges, transmission network, universal service








C_2014102EN.01001202.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 2 January 2014 — KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV v Ministerraad Intervener: Belgacom NV
(Case C-1/14)
2014/C 102/16
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV

Defendant: Ministerraad

Intervener: Belgacom NV

Questions referred







1.


Should Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), and in particular Articles 9 and 32 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the social tariff for universal service as well as the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 13(1)(b) of the Universal Service Directive are not only applicable to electronic communications by means of a telephone connection at a fixed location to a public communications network but also to electronic communications by means of mobile communication services and/or internet subscriptions?










2.


Should Article 9(3) of the Universal Service Directive be interpreted as allowing Member States to add special tariff options to the universal service for services other than those defined in Article 9(2) of the universal service?










3.


If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, are the relevant provisions of the Universal Service Directive compatible with the principle of equality, as set out inter alia in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)







(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 364, p. 1.
Case T-3/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission
Date: 2014-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01005001.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/50





Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission
(Case T-3/14)
2014/C 52/96
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Anudal Industrial, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


The contested decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.










2.


Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they were selective.










3.


Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they affect Community trade.










4.


Error of law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission found that there was State aid and categorised the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries, in circumstances in which the aid neither confers competitive advantages on those parties nor affects trade between Member States in their respective sectors.










5.


Error of law in ordering recovery of the alleged aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Case T-4/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Industrias Ponsa v Commission
Date: 2014-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01005002.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/50





Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Industrias Ponsa v Commission
(Case T-4/14)
2014/C 52/97
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Industrias Ponsa, SA (Manresa-Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-3/14 Anudal Industrial v Commission.
Case T-5/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal v Commission
Date: 2014-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01005003.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/50





Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal v Commission
(Case T-5/14)
2014/C 52/98
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Anudal, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-3/14 Anudal Industrial v Commission.