do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-14/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others/Council
Date: 2014-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, international sanctions, legal basis, merchant fleet








C_2014071EN.01002601.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/26






Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others/Council
(Case T-14/14)
(2014/C 71/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran), Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran), Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran), IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran), Irano — Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran), Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran), Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran), South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1);










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the contested measures, which include as listing criteria a connection with the first applicant (IRISL), shortly after the latter succeeded in its application for annulment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata and non-discrimination.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence by not informing IRISL or the other applicants that it intended to enact the contested measures and not giving the applicants a chance to make observations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to respect for their reputation and property.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting IRISL and connected companies in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.
Case F-1/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-01-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2014052EN.01005403.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/54





Action brought on 6 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-1/14)
2014/C 52/108
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage because of her level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested to by a diploma relevant to the post, or equivalent training/an equivalent professional qualification relevant to the post.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013;










—


Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Rule on the costs, expenses and fees and, having regard to the vexatory nature of the defendant’s decision to refuse to admit the applicant, order the Commission to pay them.
Case T-18/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Aguas de Valencia v Commission
Date: 2014-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, free competition, hire purchase, reimbursement of aid








C_2014061EN.01001802.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/18





Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Aguas de Valencia v Commission
(Case T-18/14)
2014/C 61/33
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Aguas de Valencia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-16/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Banco Mare Nostrum v Commission
Date: 2014-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, free competition, hire purchase, reimbursement of aid








C_2014061EN.01001801.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/18





Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Banco Mare Nostrum v Commission
(Case T-16/14)
2014/C 61/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Banco Mare Nostrum SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.