do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-235/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg 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.01005801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/58






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission
(Case T-235/14) (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 294/70)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH, successor in law to Bregal Bremer Galvanisierungs GmbH (Bremen, Germany); ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH (Duisburg, Germany); and ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH (Duisburg) (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.


ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH, ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH, ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH and ArcelorMittal Ruhrort 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 C-277/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, consumer information, diabetes, labelling, launching of a product, medical device, product designation, user guide








C_2015294EN.01002801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-277/15)
(2015/C 294/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Servoprax GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred







1.


In the case of an in vitro diagnostic medical device for self-testing blood sugar levels which has undergone a conformity assessment by the manufacturer in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC (1) in Member State A (specifically: in the United Kingdom), which bears the CE marking of conformity in accordance with Article 16 of that directive and which meets the essential requirements set out in Article 3 of, and Annex I to, that directive, is a third party required to subject that device to a new or additional conformity assessment in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC before it places the device on the market in Member State B (specifically: in the Federal Republic of Germany) in packaging which contains instructions in the official language of Member State B, which differs from the official language of Member State A (specifically: German as opposed to English) and the instructions for the use of which are enclosed in the official language of Member State B rather than in that of Member State A?










2.


Does it make any difference in this case whether the instructions for use enclosed by the third party correspond word-for-word to the information which the manufacturer of the device uses for the purpose of distribution in Member State B?






(1)  Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive 2011/100/EU of 20 December 2011 (OJ 2011 L 341, p. 50).
Case T-175/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen 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.01005201.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/52






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission
(Case T-175/14) (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 294/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Walter Hundhausen GmbH (Schwerte, 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 G. Mathisen, 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.


Walter Hundhausen 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.
Case T-237/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier 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.01006001.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/60






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission
(Case T-237/14) (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 294/72)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Steinbeis Papier GmbH (Glückstadt, 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.


Steinbeis Papier 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-276/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau 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.01006302.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/63






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Flachglas Torgau and Others v Commission
(Case T-276/14) (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 294/77)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Flachglas Torgau GmbH (Torgau, Germany); Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany); and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) (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.


Flachglas Torgau GmbH, Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG and Saint-Gobain Oberland AG 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.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2015191EN.01000501.xml










9.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/5





Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(2015/C 191/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP (1) and Annexes V and Va to Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (2) concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/183/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 329/2007, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned lists should be reconsidered, before 15 January 2016, to the following address:





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




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review in accordance with Article 22(2) of Decision 2013/183/CFSP and Article 6(2) and (2a) of Regulation (EC) No 329/2007.


(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 52.

(2)  OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 1.
Case F-86/15: Action brought on 9th June 2015 — ZZ v ECB
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, interest, outplacement, reassignment








C_2015279EN.01006101.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/61






Action brought on 9th June 2015 — ZZ v ECB
(Case F-86/15)
(2015/C 279/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the program ‘Career transition support’ of the ECB and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Career Transition Support (CTS) Team of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s CTS application;










—


grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he suffered consisting of the CTS financial package, estimated at 1 01  447 euros, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points;










—


grant the Applicant compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered, estimated at 10  000 euros;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Case T-173/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind 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, terms for aid








C_2015294EN.01005101.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/51






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission
(Case T-173/14) (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 294/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, 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 A. Steinarsdóttir, 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.


WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte 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.
Case C-276/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt
Date: 2015-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, over-the-counter drug, pharmacy








C_2015294EN.01002701.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2015 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt
(Case C-276/15)
(2015/C 294/33)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hecht-Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

Questions referred







1.


Do points (1) and (2) of Article 3 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) preclude a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) according to which no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Does this conclusion also apply where a national provision such as point (1) of Paragraph 21(2) of the Arzneimittelgesetz is interpreted to mean that no marketing authorisation is required for medicinal products that are intended for administration to humans and, on account of the proven frequency with which they are the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to one hundred packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence, provided that the medicinal product is either supplied to an individual patient in accordance with a medical prescription, not necessarily submitted before the preparation of the medicinal product, or is prepared in the pharmacy in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia and is intended to be supplied directly to patients?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Case T-281/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke 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.01006501.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/65






Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission
(Case T-281/14) (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 294/79)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering lawyers)

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


Fels-Werke 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.