do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2016 in Case E-14/15 — Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (Articles 31, 53 and 54 EEA — Competition law — Collective agreements — Collective action — Freedom of establishment)
Date: 2016-04-19
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, collective agreement, competition law, competition policy, dominant position, ports policy, right of establishment, trade restriction








C_2017033EN.01000701.xml










2.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/7





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 19 April 2016
in Case E-14/15
Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund
(Articles 31, 53 and 54 EEA — Competition law — Collective agreements — Collective action — Freedom of establishment)
(2017/C 33/06)
In Case E-14/15, Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Articles 31, 53 and 54, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 19 April 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The exemption from the EEA competition rules that applies to collective agreements does not cover the assessment of a priority of engagement rule, such as the one at issue, or the use of a boycott against a port user in order to procure acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate company, such as the administrative office at issue, in place of using its own employees for the same work.










2.


Articles 53 and 54 EEA may apply separately or jointly to a system such as the one at issue.










3.


Should a port, such as the one at issue, not be regarded as a substantial part of the EEA territory, identical or corresponding administrative office systems, which may exist in other ports, must be taken into account in order to determine whether a dominant position covers the territory of the EEA Agreement or a substantial part of it.










4.


A boycott such as the one at issue, aimed at procuring acceptance of a collective agreement providing for a system which includes a priority clause, is likely to discourage or even prevent the establishment of companies from other EEA States and thereby constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA.










5.


It is of no significance for the assessment whether a restriction exists if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic.










6.


In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, it is of no significance for the assessment of the lawfulness of the restriction that the company, upon which the boycott is imposed, applies another collective agreement in relation to its own dockworkers.
Case T-556/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture








C_2016200EN.01002402.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/24





Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-556/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 200/35)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:






1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case T-44/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Social policy — Service of general economic interest — Article 352 TFEU — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European citizenship, participatory democracy, petition, right to justice, services of general interest, social policy








C_2016200EN.01001901.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/19





Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission
(Case T-44/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Social policy - Service of general economic interest - Article 352 TFEU - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 200/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Gałązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens’ Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers, and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7612 final of 5 November 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bruno Costantini and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
Call for proposals under the 2016 work plan of the Bio-based Industries Public-Private Partnership
Date: 2016-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, invitation to tender, public-private partnership








C_2016137EN.01001001.xml










19.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/10





Call for proposals under the 2016 work plan of the Bio-based Industries Public-Private Partnership
(2016/C 137/07)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of the call for proposals and related activities under the 2016 work plan of the Bio-based Industries Public-Private Partnership.
Proposals are invited for the following call: H2020-BBI-JTI-2016
This work plan, including deadlines and budgets for the activities, is available through the Participant Portal website (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal) along with information on the modalities of the call and related activities, as well as guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Participant Portal.
Case T-170/16: Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission
Date: 2016-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, powers of the institutions (EU), regional aid, single market, terms for aid








C_2016243EN.01003501.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/35





Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission
(Case T-170/16)
(2016/C 243/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, S.L. (Llodio, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, D. Armesto Macías and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


admit the application and the grounds for annulment set out therein;










—


uphold the grounds for annulment set out in the application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;










—


order the initiation of a formal procedure as set out in Article 108(2) TFEU so that the applicant may exercise its procedural rights and the Commission may formally resolve, in accordance with the law, its doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid in question;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission refusing to declare compatible certain aids received by Guardian which was notifed to the Spanish authorities by a letter from the Commission dated 15 July 2015, entitled ‘Tax matters in the Basque Country (Álava) — Informal communication regarding additional submissions in connection to compatibility with the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid’, and notified to the applicant by the Spanish authorities on 19 February 2016.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law.
By its main plea the applicant submits that in adopting a decision declaring an individual aid award to be incompatible with the internal market, the Commission infringed Article 250 TFEU and the principle of collegiality in so far as that decision was not adopted by the College of Commissioners, as well as infringing Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4 and 13 of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) in so far as it failed to initiate the formal procedure prior to the adoption of that decision.










2.


Second plea in law.
By its second plea, relied on in the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in so far as the Commission decision erred in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).