do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-611/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU — Refusal of access — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to inform about available remedies — Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Euribor, access to EU information, bank, confidentiality, euro, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2018104EN.01002901.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/29





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission
(Case T-611/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to inform about available remedies - Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality))
(2018/C 104/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: E. Wagner and H. Hoffmeyer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Wildpanner and A. Buchet, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, A. Buchet and F. Erlbacher and finally F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 3 September 2015 refusing the applicant access to the non-confidential version of the Commission decision of 4 December 2013 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement [Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Settlement procedure] and to the table of contents of the administrative file of that procedure and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to establish a non-confidential version of Decision C(2013) 8512 final and of the table of contents relating to that procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-216/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission (State aid — Health insurance bodies — Capital increase, debt repayment, subsidies and Risk Equalisation Scheme — Decision finding no State aid — Concept of State aid — Concept of undertaking and economic activity — Principle of solidarity — State supervision — Activity that is economic in nature — Competition on quality — Presence of operators seeking to make a profit — Pursuit, use and distribution of profits — Error of law — Error of assessment)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, aid to undertakings, capital increase, competition, control of State aid, debt, health insurance, insurance company, profit








C_2018104EN.01002501.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/25





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission
(Case T-216/15) (1)

((State aid - Health insurance bodies - Capital increase, debt repayment, subsidies and Risk Equalisation Scheme - Decision finding no State aid - Concept of State aid - Concept of undertaking and economic activity - Principle of solidarity - State supervision - Activity that is economic in nature - Competition on quality - Presence of operators seeking to make a profit - Pursuit, use and distribution of profits - Error of law - Error of assessment))
(2018/C 104/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.–J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (Bratislava) (represented by: initially E. Pijnacker Hordijk and A. ter Haar, and subsequently A. ter Haar, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by the Slovak Republic to Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP) (OJ 2015 L 41, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP);










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. and by Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.;










3.


Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case T-729/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, disclosure of information, market approval, trade information, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018104EN.01003101.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/31





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA
(Case T-729/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
(2018/C 104/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH (Schwabenheim, Germany) and Intervet international BV (Boxmeer, Netherlands) (represented initially by: P. Bogaert, lawyer, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors, J. Stratford QC, and C. Thomas, Barrister, and, subsequently, by P. Bogaert, B. Kelly, J. Stratford, and C. Thomas)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Spina, S. Marino, A. Rusanov and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/785809/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2006.
Case T-235/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Pari Pharma v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, disclosure of information, market approval, medicinal product, trade information








C_2018104EN.01002601.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/26





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Pari Pharma v EMA
(Case T-235/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
(2018/C 104/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Rusanov, S. Marino, A. Spina and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents) and Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Pari Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;










4.


Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
Case T-59/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018112EN.01004201.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/42





Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)
(Case T-59/18)
(2018/C 112/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEMIVIA’ — Application for registration No 13 148 986

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 280/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs both at EUIPO and at the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-69/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, eligibility criteria, social services








C_2018112EN.01004402.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/44





Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission
(Case T-69/18)
(2018/C 112/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV (Hanover, Germany) and CarePool Hannover GmbH (Hanover) (represented by: T. Unger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7686 final of 23 November 2017, with regard to State aid SA.42268 (2017/E) — Deutschland Staatliche Beihilfe zur Förderung wohlfahrtspflegerischer Aufgaben (Germany State aid for the promotion of social welfare projects) and SA.42877 (2017/E) — Deutschland CarePool Hannover GmbH, and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of procedural rights
The infringement of procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU follows from the fact that the defendant decided, despite serious difficulties with the assessment of the factual and legal situation, not to initiate the formal investigation procedure. In particular, the length, the quality of the defendant’s reasoning and its conduct during the contested State aid procedure support the need to initiate the formal investigation procedure in order to address the serious difficulties of assessing the issue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
A further infringement of the procedural requirements results from the fact that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and therefore is not compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107f TFEU
Further, there is an infringement of Article 107f TFEU, since the defendant mistakenly assumes that there is an existing measure. The contested subsidies are new measures, which satisfy the conditions for State aid.
Case T-61/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, staff regulations (EU), whistleblowing








C_2018134EN.01002301.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/23





Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission
(Case T-61/18)
(2018/C 134/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:






—


principally, that the Commission is ordered to remedy the losses suffered and therefore to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 68 831 in respect of his pecuniary loss and EUR 100 000 in respect of his non-pecuniary loss;










—


in the alternative, that the decision of 28 March 2017 refusing assistance is annulled;










—


in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges, principally, that the Commission committed a faute de service in disregarding his status as a whistle-blower, which caused the applicant pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm which it is for the institution to remedy. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the institution failed to have regard to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by refusing to grant him the assistance provided for in that article after the criminal proceedings.
Case C-72/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2018 — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: BusinessEurope, European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, European Trade Union Confederation, Navarre, Spain, contract staff, framework agreement, pay, professional career, temporary employment








C_2018161EN.01001701.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2018 — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra
(Case C-72/18)
(2018/C 161/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui

Defendant: Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

Question referred







1.-


Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP approved by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) be interpreted as precluding a regional legislative provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which expressly excludes the award and payment to staff employed by the Public Administration of Navarre who are classified as ‘employed under an administrative contract’ (a fixed-term contract) of particular additional remuneration, on the grounds that the additional remuneration in question constitutes remuneration for promotion and development in a professional career that is open only to staff classified as ‘established public officials’ (with a contract of indefinite duration)?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case T-208/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA (Research and technological development — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Horizon 2020 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant — Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, abuse of power, financial aid, manuscript, mathematics, project evaluation, research and development, research project








C_2018104EN.01003201.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/32





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
(Case T-208/16) (1)

((Research and technological development - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Horizon 2020 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant - Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))
(2018/C 104/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented initially by: E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and L. Moreau, and subsequently by E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of (i) ERCEA Decision Ares(2016) 1020667 of 26 February 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application for a review of the decision refusing to subsidise research proposal No 682937, entitled ‘PHercSchools2 — The Hellenistic Philosophical Schools in the Herculaneum Papyri’, (ii) ERCEA Decision Ares(2015) 5922529 of 17 December 2015, refusing to subsidise that research proposal, and (iii) any prior, subsequent or connected measure linked to those decisions, in particular the list of projects approved for the ‘ERC Consolidator Grant’ support programme made public by the ERCEA’s press release of 12 February 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Graziano Ranocchia to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case C-74/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd
Date: 2018-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, United Kingdom, establishment, insurance company, insurance premium, legal person, merger, share, tax collection








C_2018142EN.01003202.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd
(Case C-74/18)
(2018/C 142/43)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A Ltd

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalontayksikkö.

Questions referred







1.


In the interpretation of Article 157(1), first subparagraph of Directive 2009/138/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13(13) and (14) thereof, is the Member State entitled to levy tax on insurance premiums considered as being the State in which the company (a legal person) which has taken out the insurance policy is established or the State in which the company which is the subject of the company acquisition is established, where an insurance company with its registered office in Great Britain, which does not have a place of business in Finland offers insurance covering risks relating to a company acquisition






—


to a company which does not have a place of business in Finland, which, in the company acquisition, acts as the purchaser, and the target company is established in Finland;










—


a company established in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the buyer, where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland;










—


a company which has no place of business in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is established in Finland;










—


a company established in Finland, which in the company acquisition acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland.














2.


Does the fact that the insurance covers only the tax liabilities of the company which arose before the company acquisition have any impact in the present case?










3.


Does the question whether the company acquisition concerns shares or a part of the business of the target company have an impact in the present case?










4.


If the company acquisition concerns the shares of the target company is representations made by the seller to the buyer concern only the fact that the seller is the owner of the shares sold and that they are not subject to third-party claims have any effect in the present case?






(1)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1).