do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-553/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, presidential election, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2018427EN.01008801.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/88






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council
(Case T-553/18)
(2018/C 427/116)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8854 — Norsk Hydro/Rio Tinto Assets) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, energy production, holding company, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2018332EN.01000201.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/2






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.8854 — Norsk Hydro/Rio Tinto Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 332/03)
On 17 August 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Norsk Hydro and Rio Tinto Assets. On 14 September 2018, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.
Case T-549/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hexal/EMA
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product








C_2018436EN.01005201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/52






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hexal/EMA
(Case T-549/18)
(2018/C 436/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hexal AG (Holzkirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Martens, N. Carbonnelle, lawyers and S. Faircliffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare that the plea of illegality raised by the applicant against the conclusion of the CHMP that Sanofi’s Teriflunomide has NAS status, as quoted in the Commission decision of 26 August 2013 granting marketing authorization for ‘AUBAGIO® — Teriflunomide’, is admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision of EMA of 5 July 2018 not to validate the Hexal’s MA application for a generic version of the medicinal product Aubagio®;










—


order the EMA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision refuses to validate Hexal’s marketing authorisation application for Teriflunomide Hexal, given that Aubagio®, a previously authorised medicine still benefits from regulatory data protection, according to the Commission implementing decision of 26 August 2013, against which the applicant raises an exception of illegality under Article 277 TFEU. In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


Under a first plea in law against the challenged decision of the European Medicine’s Agency, Hexal submits that, the exception of illegality being well-founded, the statement of reasons of the contested decision is not legally admissible because the EMA erred in fact and law and failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons and to perform a careful and thorough assessment, as provided under Article 296 TFEU;










2.


Under a second plea in law, the legality of the challenged decision is also contested given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Hexal’s generic market authorisation application, which was not the case. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFUE, which in turn renders the contested decision illegal.
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2018332EN.01000501.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/5






Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply
(2018/C 332/06)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG RELEX (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG RELEX that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG RELEX 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/44.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Case T-554/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hernández Hernández/Council
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, presidential election, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2018427EN.01008901.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/89






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hernández Hernández/Council
(Case T-554/18)
(2018/C 427/117)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Case T-552/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, presidential election, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2018427EN.01008701.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/87






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council
(Case T-552/18)
(2018/C 427/115)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Case C-581/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, French overseas department and region, damage, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, insurance company, payment, private sector, territorial jurisdiction








C_2018427EN.01001801.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others
(Case C-581/18)
(2018/C 427/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: RB

Defendants and respondents: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Is the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18(1) TFEU directed not only at the EU Member States and the Union institutions, but also at private parties (direct third-party effect of Article 18(1) TFEU)?










2.


If the first question should be answered in the negative and Article 18(1) TFEU is not applicable to relations between private parties: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that this provision precludes restricting cover to cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories because the competent French authority, the Bureau central de tarification (central pricing office), did not object to the corresponding clause, even though that clause is contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU because it involves indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality?










3.


If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount?










4.


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that if, contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU, the insurer has only settled claims in cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories, it is prohibited from objecting that payment could not take place because the maximum cover amount was already reached, if the case of damage occurred outside of those territories?
Case C-438/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 — European Commission v French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles (Appeal — State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France — Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) — Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Presumption of the existence of an advantage — Burden and standard of proof)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid system, control of State aid, financial aid, petroleum exploration, proof, public sector








C_2018408EN.01000601.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 — European Commission v French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles
(Case C-438/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France - Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Burden and standard of proof))
(2018/C 408/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), IFP Énergies nouvelles (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)” (COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (COD))
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, fraud, fraud against the EU








C_2018440EN.01019901.xml










6.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 440/199






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)’
(COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (CNS))
(2018/C 440/34)






Consultation


European Commission, 18.6.2018




Legal basis


Articles 133 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted at plenary


19.9.2018




Plenary session No


537




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


207/0/1




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 537th plenary session of 19 and 20 September 2018 (meeting of 19 September 2018), by 207 votes with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 19 September 2018.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER
Case T-39/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Concept of privacy — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Application of a general presumption — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, access to EU information, access to information, control of State aid, corporation tax, ports policy, protection of privacy, provision of documents, tax exemption








C_2018399EN.01003302.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/33






Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission
(Case T-39/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Concept of privacy - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Application of a general presumption - Overriding public interest))
(2018/C 399/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva- Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 7755 final of 23 November 2016 refusing to grant the applicant, first, full access to the questionnaire sent to all the Member States, secondly, access to the Member States’ replies to that questionnaire, referred to in a letter sent on 8 July 2016 to the French Republic in the context of State aid procedure SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) –Tax treatment of ports in France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.