do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-177/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — TestBioTech and Others v Commission (Environment — Genetically modified products — Genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 — Request for internal review of the decision on marketing authorisation dismissed as unfounded — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental protection, leguminous vegetable, market approval, transgenic plant








C_2017038EN.01002401.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/24





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — TestBioTech and Others v Commission
(Case T-177/13) (1)

((Environment - Genetically modified products - Genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 - Request for internal review of the decision on marketing authorisation dismissed as unfounded - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
(2017/C 038/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV (Braunschweig, Germany), Sambucus eV (Vahlde, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Cattabriga and P. Oliver, and subsequently by P. Cattabriga and L. Flynn and, lastly, by C. Cattabriga, L. Flynn and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by E. Jenkinson and L. Christie, and subsequently by L. Christie and, lastly, by S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents) and Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium) and Monsanto Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Pittie, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2013, concerning the review of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/347/EU of 28 June 2012 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 (MON-877Ø1-2 x MON-89788-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 171, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
Case T-169/08 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC — Grant or maintenance of exploitation rights for public deposits of lignite in favour of a public undertaking — Definition of the markets at issue — Existence of unequal opportunities — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, award of contract, coal mining, competition, dominant position, lignite, market access, mining extraction, service concession








C_2017038EN.01002102.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/21





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission
(Case T-169/08 RENV) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC - Grant or maintenance of exploitation rights for public deposits of lignite in favour of a public undertaking - Definition of the markets at issue - Existence of unequal opportunities - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Proportionality))
(2017/C 038/28)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, Agent, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Elpedison Paragogi Ilektrikis Energeias AE (Elpedison Energeiaki), formerly Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE (Marousi, Greece) and Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & D SA) (Kifisia, Greece) (represented by: P. Skouris and E. Trova, lawyers) and Mytilinaios AE (Athens), Protergia AE (Athens) et Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, formerly Alouminion AE (Athens) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Zarzoura, D. Diakopoulos and E. Chrisafis, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission, by Elpedison Paragogi Ilektrikis Energeias AE (Elpedison Energeiaki), by Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & D SA), by Mytilinaios AE, by Protergia AE and by Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE;










3.


Declares that the Hellenic Republic is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
Case C-647/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, residence permit, right of asylum, stateless person, third country








C_2017070EN.01001101.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais
(Case C-647/16)
(2017/C 070/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lille

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Adil Hassan

Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (1) preclude the competent authorities of the Member State which has submitted, to a Member State which it, by application of the criteria set out in the Regulation, considers to be the State responsible, a request to take charge or take back a third-country national or a stateless person who has submitted an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken, or another person referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) of the Regulation, from taking a transfer decision and notifying it to the person concerned before the requested State has accepted that request to take charge or to take the person back?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Abertis Telecom Terrestre and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of an undertaking — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Distortion of competition — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — New aid)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Castile-La Mancha, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, digitisation, high-definition television, peripheral region, services of general interest








C_2017038EN.01002801.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/28





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Abertis Telecom Terrestre and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission
(Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of an undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))
(2017/C 038/37)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, and subsequently J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8325 — KKR/Hilding Anders) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, merger control








C_2016467EN.01002901.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 467/29





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8325 — KKR/Hilding Anders)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 467/16)






1.


On 8 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking KKR & Co. LP (‘KKR’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Hilding Anders Holdings 3 AB (‘Hilding Anders’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: asset management on a global basis and offering of financial advisory services,
—   for Hilding Anders: development, manufacture and marketing of beds, mattresses and related products.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8325 — KKR/Hilding Anders, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-882/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017046EN.01002501.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/25





Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)
(Case T-882/16)
(2017/C 046/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DOLFINA’ — EU trade mark application No 3 701 828

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1897/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervening party, LA DOLFINA S.A., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 15, 42, 51, 75, 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 22 and 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-520/16: Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017129EN.01001402.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/14





Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-520/16) (1)

(2017/C 129/22)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.