do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — Amendment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(10) and (11) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Calculation of the dumping margin — Adjustments — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product








C_2015198EN.01003002.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/30





Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council
(Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Amendment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(10) and (11) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 198/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory (Changshu City, China); and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrich and A. Polcyn, subsequently by A. Polcyn and finally by D. Geradin, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois and R. Grasso, lawyers)

Re:

Actions for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the actions;










2)


Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI);










3)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
Case T-9/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — National Iranian Gas Company v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Objection of illegality — Error of law — Proportionality — Right to property — Jurisdiction of the Council — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Review of the restrictive measures adopted — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear weapon, principle of proportionality, real property, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015198EN.01003101.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/31





Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — National Iranian Gas Company v Council
(Case T-9/13) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Objection of illegality - Error of law - Proportionality - Right to property - Jurisdiction of the Council - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment))
(2015/C 198/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: The National Iranian Gas Company (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: E. Glaser and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, Agents)

Re:

First, application for partial annulment of Article 1, point 8, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and, secondly, application for annulment of Decision 2012/635, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), and of the decision communicated by the Council’s letter of 14 March 2014, in so far as the inclusion of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) is concerned.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the National Iranian Gas Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Case F-17/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 April 2015 — Ibánez Martínez v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Award of merit points — Opinion of the Reports Committee — Wide discretion of the administration — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, equal treatment, promotion, staff assessment








C_2015198EN.01004901.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/49





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 April 2015 — Ibánez Martínez v Parliament
(Case F-17/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Award of merit points - Opinion of the Reports Committee - Wide discretion of the administration - Equal treatment))
(2015/C 198/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Ibánez Martínez (Leeuw-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to award the applicant three merit points in the 2012 promotion year

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ibánez Martínez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 41.
Case C-198/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 April 2015 — Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, facilities for people with disabilities, physically disabled person, tariff nomenclature








C_2015228EN.01000601.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 April 2015 — Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-198/15)
(2015/C 228/07)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

The Questions referred relate to Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006, and to heading 8713 therein.






1.


Do the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean ‘only’ for disabled persons?










2.


What is the meaning of the words ‘disabled persons’; in particular:






a)


is their meaning confined to persons who have a disability in addition to a limitation on their ability to walk or to walk easily; or does it include persons whose only limitation is on their ability to walk or to walk easily?










b)


does ‘disabled’ connote more than a marginal limitation on some ability?










c)


is a temporary limitation such as results from a broken leg capable of being a disability?














3.


Does the CNEN of 4 January 2005 (2005/C1/03) (2), in excluding scooters fitted with separate steering columns, alter the meaning of the heading 8713?










4.


Does the possibility of use of a vehicle by a person without a disability affect the tariff classification if it can be said that the vehicle has special features which alleviate the effects of a disability?










5.


If suitability for use by non-disabled persons is a relevant consideration, to what extent should the disadvantages of such use also be a relevant consideration in determining such suitability?






(1)  OJ L 301, p. 1.

(2)  Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union OJ C 137, p. 1.
Case C-51/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV v Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct life assurance — Directive 92/96/EEC — Article 31(3) — Information to be provided to the policyholder — Obligation for the insurer to provide further information on costs and premiums under general unwritten rules of national law)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, insurance contract, law of states, life assurance








C_2015213EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV v Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen
(Case C-51/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct life assurance - Directive 92/96/EEC - Article 31(3) - Information to be provided to the policyholder - Obligation for the insurer to provide further information on costs and premiums under general unwritten rules of national law))
(2015/C 213/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV

Defendant: Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive) must be interpreted as not precluding an insurance company, on the basis of general principles of domestic law such as the ‘open and/or unwritten rules’ at issue in the main proceedings, from being required to send to policyholders certain information additional to that listed in Annex II to that directive, provided that the information required is clear, accurate and necessary for the policyholder to understand the essential characteristics of the commitment and that it ensures a sufficient level of legal certainty, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;










2.


The consequences under domestic law of a failure to provide that information are, in principle, irrelevant as regards the conformity of the obligation to provide information with Article 31(3) of Directive 92/96.






(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case C-200/15: Action brought on 29 April 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: domestic market, import, law of states, motor car, vehicle tax








C_2015205EN.01002501.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/25





Action brought on 29 April 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-200/15)
(2015/C 205/33)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier, P. Guerra and A. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by applying, for the purpose of determining the taxable amount of second-hand vehicles brought into Portuguese territory from another Member State, a system for the calculation of the depreciation of vehicles which does not take account of the actual value of the vehicle and, in particular, does not take account of the depreciation in the vehicle’s value during its first year of use, or any other depreciation in the case of vehicles more than five years old, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.










—


order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that Article 11 of Portuguese Code of Taxes on Vehicles is discriminatory, in so far as concerns motor vehicles allowed into Portugal, that is second-hand vehicles bearing a permanent number-plate issued by another Member State which are placed on the Portuguese market. Unlike second-hand vehicles which are, from the outset, on the Portuguese market, vehicles allowed into Portugal from other Member States are taxed at such a rate that does not adequately reflect the depreciation in value. In particular, the tax rate is reduced only after one year of use and, after five years of use, the reduction cannot exceed 52 %.
Case T-217/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Staelen v Ombudsman (Non-contractual liability — Treatment by the Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for a general competition — Investigatory powers — Due diligence — Loss of opportunity — Non-pecuniary damage)
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), directory, job application, liability, mediator, personnel administration








C_2015198EN.01002701.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/27





Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Staelen v Ombudsman
(Case T-217/11) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Treatment by the Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for a general competition - Investigatory powers - Due diligence - Loss of opportunity - Non-pecuniary damage))
(2015/C 198/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented initially by L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and A. Blot, subsequently by F. Wies and A. Hertzog and lastly by V. Olona, lawyers)

Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: G. Grill, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the approach taken by the European Ombudsman in the treatment of her complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for General Competition EUR/A/151/98, on which she appeared as a successful candidate.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European Ombudsman to pay compensation of EUR 7  000 to Ms Claire Staelen;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Ombudsman to bear half of his own costs and to pay half of those of Ms Staelen;










4.


Orders Ms Staelen to bear half of her own costs and to pay half of those of the Ombudsman.






(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
Case T-215/15: Action brought on 29 April 2015 — Azarov v Council
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, right of establishment, rights of the defence, territorial dispute








C_2015221EN.01002501.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/25





Action brought on 29 April 2015 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-215/15)
(2015/C 221/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


prescribe, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, certain measures of organisation of procedure;










—


order the Council, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, 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: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
In this regard, it is claimed, inter alia, that the statement of reasons for the contested acts is too general with respect to the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.










3.


Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the Council misused its powers because the imposition of restrictive measures against him predominantly pursued objectives other than those of actually consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.










4.


Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of good administration
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of infringement of the right to impartial treatment, infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.










5.


Fifth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment
Case C-148/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme in the European Union — Determination of the extent of the obligation to surrender allowances — Penalties — Article 16(1) and (3))
Date: 2015-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: emission allowance, greenhouse gas, intra-EU trade, pollution, tradeable emission permit








C_2015213EN.01001001.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG
(Case C-148/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme in the European Union - Determination of the extent of the obligation to surrender allowances - Penalties - Article 16(1) and (3)))
(2015/C 213/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Nordzucker AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to an operator who surrenders a number of greenhouse gas emission allowances equal to the emissions for the preceding year as reported and verified in accordance with Article 15 of that directive, where it is established, following an additional verification carried out by the competent national authority after the expiry of the time-limit for surrender, that those emissions were understated, so that the number of allowances surrendered is insufficient;
It is for the Member States to determine the penalties which may be imposed in such a situation, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2004/101.


(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.