do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-114/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Vicentin v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014112EN.01005701.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/57





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Vicentin v Council
(Case T-114/14)
2014/C 112/74
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vicentin SAIC (Avellaneda, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case T-111/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Unitec Bio v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014112EN.01005501.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/55





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Unitec Bio v Council
(Case T-111/14)
2014/C 112/71
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unitec Bio SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case T-103/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, control of State aid, debt, rights of the defence








C_2014112EN.01005302.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/53





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
(Case T-103/14)
2014/C 112/69
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok, QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the Commission decision C (2013) 6261 dated 16 October 2013 on State Aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) addressed to the Slovak Republic; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the rights of defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in recital 83 of the contested decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and law in concluding that it would have been more advantageous for the Slovak tax authorities to initiate a bankruptcy procedure (recitals 88-119 of the contested decision).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the tax execution procedure would have led to a higher return than under the arrangement procedure.
Case C-82/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, indemnification, natural disaster








C_2014142EN.01001801.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile
(Case C-82/14)
2014/C 142/25
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Nuova Invincibile

Question referred

[Is a measure such as the tax amnesty provided for in Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002, which relates to periods in the distant past and is intended to provide some degree of compensation to persons affected by natural disasters], in so far as it has an effect on the total amounts received (or receivable) after the application of VAT, caught by the prohibition underlying the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 July 2008 in Case C-132/06?
2014/318/EU: Council Decision of 17 February 2014 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on drug precursors
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, agreement (EU), chemical product, drug traffic, fight against crime, illicit trade, narcotic, ratification of an agreement








L_2014165EN.01000601.xml










4.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 165/6








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 17 February 2014
         
on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on drug precursors

(2014/318/EU)



THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,


Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,

Whereas:







(1)


The European Union and the Russian Federation should strengthen their cooperation to prevent diversion of drug precursors from the legal trade, in order to counter the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.












(2)


In accordance with Council Decision 2013/263/EU (1), the Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on drug precursors (‘the Agreement’) was signed on 4 June 2013, subject to its conclusion at a later date.












(3)


The Agreement should ensure full respect of fundamental rights, in particular a high level of protection for the processing and transfer of personal data between the Parties to the Agreement.












(4)


The Agreement should be approved on behalf of the European Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on drug precursors is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.


Article 2
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the European Union, give the notification provided for in Article 11 of the Agreement (2).


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 17 February 2014.


For the Council


The President

A. TSAFTARIS
            





(1)  Council Decision 2013/263/EU of 13 May 2013 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on drug precursors (OJ L 154, 6.6.2013, p. 5).

(2)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Case T-115/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014112EN.01005801.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/58





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council
(Case T-115/14)
2014/C 112/75
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aceitera General Deheza SA (General Deheza, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.




Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case F-14/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, disability insurance, indemnification








C_2014175EN.01005401.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/54





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-14/14)
2014/C 175/76
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Carrozzini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the recovery of various sums withheld from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months April to September 2013.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions, contained in the pension statements for the months April to September 2013, to reduce the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled for those months by EUR 504,67 for the month of April, EUR 504,72 for the month of May and EUR 508,38 for the months June to September;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decisions, whatever the form in which they were adopted, rejecting the complaints of 16 July 2013 and 7 October 2013 against the decisions referred to above;










—


annul each decision in the note of 24 October 2013 bearing the reference ‘Ref Ares(2013)3327388 — 24/10/2013’ in the top right-hand corner of the first page of that note;










—


annul each decision in the note of 17 May 2013;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant the following sums: (1) EUR 504,67 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 May 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (2) EUR 504,72 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 June 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (3) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 July 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (4) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 August 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (5) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 September 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (6) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 October 2013 until actual payment of that sum;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position Meeting on 17 February 2014 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating Case C.39398 Visa MIF — Rapporteur: Malta
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: capital transfer, electronic money, infringement of EU law, regulation of transactions, restriction on competition, tax








C_2014147EN.01000401.xml










16.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position Meeting on 17 February 2014 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating Case C.39398 Visa MIF
Rapporteur: Malta
2014/C 147/04






(1)


The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 5 February 2014 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










(2)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Visa Europe can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










(3)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Visa Europe are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Visa Europe.










(4)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Visa Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Visa Europe, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










(5)


The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion.










(6)


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-113/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014112EN.01005601.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/56





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos v Council
(Case T-113/14)
2014/C 112/73
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos SACIFI y A (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case T-118/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — LDC Argentina v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, fixing of prices, import (EU), originating product, restriction on competition, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014151EN.01002302.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/23





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — LDC Argentina v Council
(Case T-118/14)
2014/C 151/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LDC Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case T-117/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Cargill v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, fixing of prices, import (EU), originating product, restriction on competition, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014151EN.01002301.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/23





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Cargill v Council
(Case T-117/14)
2014/C 151/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cargil SACI (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)