do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-451/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Fujikura v Commission
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Japan, cartel, fine, inter-company agreement, joint venture, market-sharing agreement, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, turnover








C_2014303EN.01004101.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/41





Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Fujikura v Commission
(Case T-451/14)
2014/C 303/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reduce the fine imposed on it in Article 2 (o) of the decision for its direct participation in the cartel between 18 February 1999 and 30 September 2001;










—


annul Article 2 (p) of the decision insofar as it holds Fujikura jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on Viscas between 1 January 2005 and 28 January 2009;










—


order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.





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 Commission erred by including Viscas’ parents’ independent sales in 2004 into the value of sales used for the determination of the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that it only participated in the alleged cartel until 30 September 2001 and that its independent sales in the course of 2004 did not form part of the cartel.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by insufficiently taking into account the limited weight of the Japanese undertakings in the cartel when setting the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that since it faced significant technical and commercial entry barriers in Europe, its commitment not to compete in the European Economic Area (EEA) was immaterial for the effectiveness of the European suppliers’ customer allocation arrangements within the EEA. The Commission should therefore have differentiated more significantly the gravity factors used for the fines imposed upon the applicant (or other Asian suppliers) and upon European suppliers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by retaining the applicant’s parent liability for the fine imposed on Viscas also from 1 January 2005 onwards. The applicant submits that when Viscas became a full-function joint venture in January 2005, the legal links (e.g. reporting), organizational links (e.g. secondment of full time directors) and economic links (e.g. guarantees for borrowings) between Viscas and the applicant became too thin for the Commission to conclude that the applicant continued to exercise decisive influence over Viscas during the infringement period between January 2005 and January 2009.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014184EN.01000101.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 184/01

Last publication


OJ C 175, 10.6.2014


Past publications


OJ C 159, 26.5.2014


OJ C 151, 19.5.2014


OJ C 142, 12.5.2014


OJ C 135, 5.5.2014


OJ C 129, 28.4.2014


OJ C 112, 14.4.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-456/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — TAO/AFI and SFIE v Parliament and Council
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: collective bargaining, organisation of professions, trade union, worker consultation








C_2014261EN.01004301.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/43





Action brought on 16 June 2014 — TAO/AFI and SFIE v Parliament and Council
(Case T-456/14)
2014/C 261/69
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne/Association of Independent Officials for the Defence of the European Civil Service (TAO/AFI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens/Union of International and European Civil Servants (SFIE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare the present action for annulment before it admissible;










—


Annul the contested Regulations with all the attendant consequences in law;










—


Order the defendants to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law alleging infringement of the prerogatives which they have as trade unions and professional associations, namely the right to consultation and the right of negotiation.
The applicants were not consulted either at the stage of preparation of the proposals or during the stage of the negotiations in respect of the disputed Regulations.
2014/367/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 16 June 2014 amending Council Directive 2002/56/EC as regards the date laid down in Article 21(3) until which Member States are authorised to extend the validity of decisions concerning equivalence of seed potatoes from third countries (notified under document C(2014) 3877)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: originating product, potato, quality control of agricultural products, third country








L_2014178EN.01002601.xml










18.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 178/26








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION
         
of 16 June 2014
         
amending Council Directive 2002/56/EC as regards the date laid down in Article 21(3) until which Member States are authorised to extend the validity of decisions concerning equivalence of seed potatoes from third countries


(notified under document C(2014) 3877)


(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/367/EU)



THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 2002/56/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed potatoes (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Directive 2002/56/EC provides that, with effect from certain dates, Member States may no longer determine for themselves the equivalence of seed potatoes harvested in third countries with seed potatoes harvested within the Union and complying with that Directive.












(2)


However, as work to establish a Union equivalence for seed potatoes from all the third countries concerned had not been completed, Directive 2002/56/EC permitted Member States to extend until 31 March 2014 the validity of equivalence decisions which they had already taken for seed potatoes from certain third countries not covered by a Union equivalence. This date was chosen by reference to the end of the period where seed potatoes are placed on the market.












(3)


Since this work still has not been completed and a new marketing season will start by the end of the year 2014, it is necessary to authorise Member States to extend the validity of their national equivalence decisions.












(4)


Directive 2002/56/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In the first subparagraph of Article 21(3) of Directive 2002/56/EC, ‘31 March 2014’ is replaced by ‘31 March 2017’.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 16 June 2014.


For the Commission

Tonio BORG
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 60.
Case T-442/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01006002.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/60





Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission
(Case T-442/14)
2014/C 253/82
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Metalúrgica Galaica, SA (Narón, A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) 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 the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; 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 raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.