do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-320/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2019 — Ingredion Germany GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2019-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, fuel, greenhouse gas, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2019246EN.01001001.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2019 — Ingredion Germany GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-320/19)
(2019/C 246/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ingredion Germany GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Are Article 18(1)(c) and the second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (1) in conjunction with Article 3(h) and Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, for new entrants, the capacity utilisation factor relevant for the fuel-related activity level is limited to a value of less than 100 %?


(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
Case T-265/19: Action brought on 19 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Commission
Date: 2019-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2019206EN.01009501.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/95






Action brought on 19 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Commission
(Case T-265/19)
(2019/C 206/84)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: R. Guizzi, A. Giordano and G. Palmieri, avvocati dello stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul, in so far as it is contested in the present action, Commission Implementing Decision No C(2019)869 of 12 February 2019, notified on 13 February 2019, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

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, with reference to INVESTIGATION CEB/2017/067/IT, infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103), in particular Article 2(2); of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), in particular Article 31(2); and of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).






—


The applicant also claims in this regard infringement of Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty of 12 December 2007, and of the principles of proportionality and of legitimate expectations.










—


Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse of power and infringement of an essential procedural requirement in the form of failure to state adequate reasons.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging, with reference to INVESTIGATION FA/2008/067/IT, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, as well as Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.






—


The Italian Republic, therefore, alleges misuse of power as well as infringement of an essential procedural requirement in the form of failure to state adequate reasons and, lastly, infringement of the principles of proportionality and of legitimate expectations.
Case C-324/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2019 — eurocylinder systems AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
Date: 2019-04-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, application of the law, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, piping, tube








C_2019255EN.01001801.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2019 — eurocylinder systems AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
(Case C-324/19)
(2019/C 255/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: eurocylinder systems AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?


(1)  OJ 2009, L 262, p. 19.