do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-558/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Iran Insurance v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








C_2019082EN.01003501.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/35






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Iran Insurance v Council
(Case T-558/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage))
(2019/C 82/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Iran Insurance Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-890/16: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory measure — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, EU financing, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, project of common interest, rail transport, road transport, tunnel








C_2019065EN.01003402.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/34






Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-890/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link - Individual aid - Act not open to challenge - Purely confirmatory measure - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
(2019/C 65/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and by S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 30 September 2016 concerning State aid implemented by Denmark for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-83/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CH v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Right to be heard — Principle of audi alteram partem — Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses — Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP Committee, European official, harassment at work, indemnification, legal aid, psychological harassment, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019082EN.01005501.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/55






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CH v Parliament
(Case T-83/18) (1)

((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Right to be heard - Principle of audi alteram partem - Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses - Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court))
(2019/C 82/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CH (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 20 March 2017 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 22 December 2011 and, second, compensation for the loss she has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2017, by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by CH on 22 December 2011;










2.


Orders the Parliament to pay CH, in respect of non-material harm suffered, an amount of EUR 8 500;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Case T-734/18: Action brought on 13 December 2018 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal welfare, chemical product, insecticide, market approval, plant health control, plant health treatment, rights of the defence








C_2019072EN.01003301.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/33






Action brought on 13 December 2018 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission
(Case T-734/18)
(2019/C 72/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and Tenka Best, SL (Aiguafreda, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer and V. McElwee, solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18; (1)











—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the contested act. Had such steps been followed, the act adopted might have been different.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in the following areas: in not taking into account the procedural irregularities in the review of empenthrin; in permitting a hypothetical risk to give rise to the non-approval of empenthrin; in failing to take into account animal welfare requirements stemming from the Biocidal Products Regulation. (2)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to ensure the first applicant’s rights of defence






—


It is argued that the first applicant’s comments and data have not been reviewed and its rights of defence necessarily infringed.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.






—


It is argued that the first applicant was not given the time to develop future data and that its data waivers were unfairly rejected.










(1)  OJ 2018 L 235, p. 24.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 December 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an amendment to the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety (07482/2018 — C8-0157/2018 — 2016/0343(NLE))
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: United States, air safety, approval, civil aviation, cooperation agreement (EU), crew, professional qualifications, ratification of an agreement, revision of an agreement








C_2020388EN.01084601.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/846






P8_TA(2018)0522
US-EU Agreement on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 December 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an amendment to the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety (07482/2018 — C8-0157/2018 — 2016/0343(NLE))
(Consent)
(2020/C 388/46)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council Decision (07482/2018);










—


having regard to the draft Amendment 1 to the Agreement on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety between the United States of America and the European Community (07236/2017),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0157/2018);










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure;










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0432/2018);












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the United States of America.
Case T-830/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PLOMBIR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019082EN.01004901.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/49






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)
(Case T-830/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PLOMBIR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))
(2019/C 82/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, D. Walicka and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Monolith Frost and Dovgan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH, including the costs necessarily incurred by Monolith Frost for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










3.


Orders Dovgan GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-165/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, airport, control of State aid, financial aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019082EN.01003401.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/34






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
(Case T-165/15) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
(2019/C 82/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-284/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission (State aid — Chemical industry — Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings — Decision finding no State aid — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private creditor test — Whether attributable to the State — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, admissibility, aid to undertakings, chemical industry, company in difficulties, control of State aid, liquidation








C_2019082EN.01003402.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/34






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission
(Case T-284/15) (1)

((State aid - Chemical industry - Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings - Decision finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private creditor test - Whether attributable to the State - Duty to state reasons))
(2019/C 82/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: initially P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos, E. Kazili, P. Oravec et K. Csach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent); and Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of AlzChem AG;










3.


Orders the Slovak Republic and Fortischem a.s. to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case T-53/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, airport, control of State aid, financial aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019082EN.01003901.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/39






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
(Case T-53/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
(2019/C 82/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes, Ryanair Limited and Airport Marketing Services Limited (OJ 2016 L 113, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.