do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-256/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Telefónica v Commission
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, goodwill, reimbursement of aid, shareholding, tax relief








C_2015245EN.01003702.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/37





Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Telefónica v Commission
(Case T-256/15)
(2015/C 245/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Telefónica, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought







—


annul Article 1 of the contested decision;










—


annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision insofar as it orders the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the aid scheme referred to in Article 1;










—


annul Article 4(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the contested decision, insofar as it orders the recovery of the State aid established by the Commission;










—


in the alternative, limit the recovery obligation laid down by Article 4(2) of the contested decision under the same conditions as those established in the First and Second Decisions, and










—


order the Commission to bear the total costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.
The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.
It is claimed in particular that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in examining the interpretation of the Spanish tax administration (DGT) and concluding that it amounts to a new measure likely to constitute new state aid, and in claiming that the first two decisions did not cover the possible application of the measure at issue to the acquisition of indirect shareholdings.
Case T-294/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Klemme v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002201.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/22





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Klemme v Commission
(Case T-294/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 245/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Klemme AG (Lutherstadt Eisleben, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.










3.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










4.


Klemme AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










5.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-285/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity produced from renewable energy sources and energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after bringing the action — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new factors — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01001801.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/18





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
(Case T-285/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity produced from renewable energy sources and energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after bringing the action - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new factors - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 245/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented initially by: A. Reuter, C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, K. Kindereit, R. Busch, A. Hohler and T. Woltering, and subsequently by: A. Reuter, C. Bürger, T. Christner and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of electricity from renewable sources and energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.










2.


The application to amend the form of order sought to refer to Commission Decision C(2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 concerning State aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of electricity from renewable sources and energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.










3.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










4.


Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.










5.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-272/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lease, parking area, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01004102.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/41





Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
(Case T-272/15)
(2015/C 245/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 248 278

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2062/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-286/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01001901.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/19





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission
(Case T-286/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 245/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik GmbH (Brensbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-288/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002001.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/20





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission
(Case T-288/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 245/24)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Energiewerke Nord GmbH (Rubenow, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Energiewerke Nord GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-257/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Arcelormittal Spain Holding v Commission
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, goodwill, reimbursement of aid, shareholding, tax relief








C_2015245EN.01003801.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/38





Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Arcelormittal Spain Holding v Commission
(Case T-257/15)
(2015/C 245/45)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Arcelormittal Spain Holding, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought







—


annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 355550 (13/C) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;










—


in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that decision for the reasons stated, and










—


order the defendant institution to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.
The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.