do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-444/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission
Date: 2016-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, fiscal policy, powers of the institutions (EU), profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016350EN.01002601.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/26





Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission
(Case T-444/16)
(2016/C 350/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Vasco Group (Dilsen-Stokkem, Belgium) and Astra Sweets (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.
EU-28 ethyl alcohol balance sheet for 2015 (Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003)
Date: 2016-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU market, balance sheet, ethanol, exchange of information








C_2016288EN.01000201.xml










9.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/2





EU-28 ethyl alcohol balance sheet for 2015
(Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003)
(2016/C 288/02)









 


EU-28 ethyl alcohol balance sheet for 2015
Established on 28 July 2016 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003 (1)



Hectolitres of pure alcohol (HLPA)




1.


Initial stock


—










—


Agricultural origin






16 926 851 










—


Non-agricultural origin






—




2.


Production


—










—


Agricultural origin






64 201 116 










—


Non-agricultural origin






—




3.


Imports (2)
 (3)



4 721 410 










—


0 % Duty






2 448 098 










—


Reduced duty






—










—


100 % duty






2 273 312 




4.


Total resources


85 849 377 




5.


Exports


1 626 361 




6.


Internal consumption


65 772 749 




 


Agricultural


Non-agricultural


Total




Food


9 294 927 


 


 




Industrial


8 158 146 


 


 




Fuel (3)



45 216 528 


 


 




Other


3 103 148 


 


 




 



Total




65 772 749 



 


 




7.


Final stock


—










—


Agricultural origin






18 450 267 










—


Non-agricultural origin






—









(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2336/2003 of 30 December 2003 introducing certain detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 670/2003 laying down specific measures concerning the market in ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin (OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 19).

(2)  Covers only products under codes CN 2207 10, CN 2207 20, CN 2208 90 91 and CN 2208 90 99.

(3)  Excludes 3,5 million HLPA under CN 3824 90 92, 3824 90 93 and 3824 90 96 and 0,9 million HLPA of ETBE under CN 2909 19 10 used to produce fuel.

Sources: Communications from the Member States/Eurostat Comext
Case C-446/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
Date: 2016-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, milk, product designation








C_2016410EN.01000701.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/7





Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
(Case C-446/16 P)
(2016/C 410/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 and find against the respondent;










—


declare admissible the appellants’ notice of opposition of 23 December 2014 in procedure AT-TSG-0007-01035.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the order under appeal, the General Court took the view that the appellants’ arguments related only to the late transmission of the notice of opposition by the national authority. The appellants, however, state that they also claimed that they were placed at a disadvantage by the stipulation in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 (1) and that that provision is unlawful because it does not contain any rule on the period within which the national authority had to transmit the appellants’ notice of opposition to the respondent. In that regard, the appellants referred to a flaw in that provision resulting in a situation in which, in the worst-case scenario, they would be unable to lodge a notice of opposition at all. The General Court did not rule on that issue.
In the order presently under appeal, the General Court held only that the appellants had not adequately invoked the unlawfulness of that provision. However, the appellants had already referred in their application to the issue of the incorrect determination of the period in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012. This means that the appellants did object to the rule laid down by the aforementioned provision and proceeded on the basis that their rights as opposing parties had not been adequately respected.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016288EN.01000101.xml










9.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 August 2016
(2016/C 288/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1087 




JPY


Japanese yen


113,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4368 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84955 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5250 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0883 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4065 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,02 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2786 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4584 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3082 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4520 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4573 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5999 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5548 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4944 




KRW


South Korean won


1 229,38 




ZAR


South African rand


15,1284 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3848 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4799 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 552,80 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4694 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,004 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,8090 




THB


Thai baht


38,793 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5239 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6443 




INR


Indian rupee


74,1000 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-443/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2016-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), customs inspection, linguistic discrimination, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), supervisor, use of languages








C_2016371EN.01002101.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/21





Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-443/16)
(2016/C 371/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests before the General Court the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16 to draw up reserve lists with, respectively, 40 places to fill vacant Administrator posts (AD 7) for the profile — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods; and 10 places for Administrator posts (AD 9) for the profile — Investigators: Team leaders, published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union of 26 May 2016, No C 187 A.
The same competition notices are the subject of Case T-401/16, Spain v Commission.
The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case.
The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 18 TFEU, 24 TFEU, and 342 TFEU, and of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of proportionality and of the substantive rules inherent in the nature and purpose of notices of competition, misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation 1/58.