do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-236/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01005901.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/59






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission
(Case T-236/14) (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 294/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany); and Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, 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.


Kronetex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-275/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01006301.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/63






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission
(Case T-275/14) (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 294/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany); DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH (Cologne, Germany); Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH (Völklingen, Germany); Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany); Stahlguss Saar GmbH (Sankt Ingbert); and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, 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.


Drahtwerk St. lngbert GmbH, DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH, Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, Stahlguss Saar GmbH and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-272/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01006201.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/62






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission
(Case T-272/14) (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 294/75)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (Oschatz, Germany); P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH (Erbach, Germany); P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH (Wilsdruff, Germany); and Glashütte Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, 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.


P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-306/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — KV v EACEA
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, child, child care, information network, teacher, teacher training








C_2015279EN.01003902.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/39






Action brought on 9 June 2015 — KV v EACEA
(Case T-306/15)
(2015/C 279/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KV (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision EACEA/MH/mvh/OKRAPF15D006233 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), dated 10 April 2014, on the financing of the agreement 518072-LLP-1-2011-1-DE-COMENIUS-CNW/2011-3848 with regard to the NEST — ‘Network for Staff and Teachers in Childcare Services’ Project;










—


order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicants in the current proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a first manifest error of assessment.






—


The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment when distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the Agency manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment






—


The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the Agency.
Case T-270/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01006101.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/61






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission
(Case T-270/14) (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 294/74)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH (Guben, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Kobes, 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.


Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-265/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01006002.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/60






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission
(Case T-265/14) (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 294/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Schumacher Packaging GmbH (Schwarzenberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, 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.


Schumacher Packaging GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Corrigendum to Decision No 1 of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council of 21 October 2013 adopting its rules of procedure [2015/857] (OJ L 135, 2.6.2015)
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Association Council, Serbia
Subjects: Association Council (EU), Serbia, rules of procedure








L_2015143EN.01001602.xml










9.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 143/16







Corrigendum to Decision No 1 of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council of 21 October 2013 adopting its rules of procedure [2015/857]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 135 of 2 June 2015
)


In the table of contents and on page 35:
for:


                           ‘Decision No 1 of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council of 21 October 2013 adopting its rules of procedure [2015/857]’
                        
,read:


                           ‘Decision No 1/2013 of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council of 21 October 2013 adopting its rules of procedure [2015/857]’
                        
.
Case T-174/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss 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: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy production, renewable energy








C_2015294EN.01005102.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/51






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission
(Case T-174/14) (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 294/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

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 applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.










3.


Dieckerhoff Guss 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 142, 12.5.2014.
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea apply
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, data processing, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2015191EN.01000601.xml










9.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/6





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea apply
(2015/C 191/05)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 329/2007.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Case T-556/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Navarro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest — Minimum qualifications required — Refusal to offer employment — Infringement of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law — Distortion of the facts)
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, professional qualifications, recruitment, rules of procedure, servant (EU)








C_2015236EN.01004101.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/41





Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Navarro v Commission
(Case T-556/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest - Minimum qualifications required - Refusal to offer employment - Infringement of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Error of law - Distortion of the facts))
(2015/C 236/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2014 in Navarro v Commission (F-46/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:104) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Victor Navarro to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.