do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-674/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Severability — Selectivity — Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, economic activity, harbour installation, services of general interest, tax exemption








C_2019406EN.01002501.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/25






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
(Case T-674/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)
(2019/C 406/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Port de Bruxelles (Brussels, Belgium), Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case T-675/18: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, health risk, industrial secret, market approval, pesticide, trade information








C_2019413EN.01006601.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/66






Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA
(Case T-675/18) (1)

(2019/C 413/78)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-628/19: Action brought on 20 September 2019 – Teva v Commission and EMA
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, equal treatment, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product, proof








C_2019383EN.01006701.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/67






Action brought on 20 September 2019 – Teva v Commission and EMA
(Case T-628/19)
(2019/C 383/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Teva BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister and G. Morgan, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission’s Implementing Decision C (2019)5393 final of 11 July 2019 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) for ‘Cabazitaxel Teva – cabazitaxel’ (‘the decision’) insofar as it applies to the applicant, and










—


order the defendants to pay the applicant’s 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 that the Commission failed correctly to apply the concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67), in particular the concept of a ‘derivative’ medicinal product in Article 10(2)(b) thereof.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the EMA breached the principle of procedural fairness and the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular by reversing the burden of proof on generic applicants for marketing authorisations contrary to the requirements of the EU legislation in this field.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that by this conduct, the Commission also breached the principle of equal treatment, by treating the applicant differently to the holder of the marketing authorisation for Jevtana®/docetaxel.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1)
Case T-610/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission (REACH — Substances subject to authorisation — Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Volumes — Registration dossier — Data — Substance grouping — Principle of sound administration — Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemicals legislation, equal treatment, freedom of trade, health risk, market approval, organic chemical, principle of proportionality, toxic substance








C_2019406EN.01002201.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/22






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission
(Case T-610/17) (1)

(REACH - Substances subject to authorisation - Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Volumes - Registration dossier - Data - Substance grouping - Principle of sound administration - Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
(2019/C 406/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Huttunen, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, T. Zbihlej and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/999 of 13 June 2017 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2017 L 150, p. 7), in so far as it includes 1-bromopropane (nPB) in that annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case T-650/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission (Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 — Imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Resumption of the procedure following the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 — Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Normal value — Fair comparison — Non-matching product types — Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) — Determination of injury)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, cast-iron, import (EU), originating product, piping, tube








C_2019406EN.01002301.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/23






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission
(Case T-650/17) (1)

(Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 - Imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Resumption of the procedure following the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 - Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Normal value - Fair comparison - Non-matching product types - Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Determination of injury)
(2019/C 406/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 23).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd;











2.



Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Case C-695/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 September 2019 — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, dealer, financial services, household electrical appliance, producer's liability, provision of services, sale, tax exemption








C_2019406EN.01001501.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 September 2019 — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-695/19)
(2019/C 406/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Do transactions involving intermediation in the sale of extended warranties on household electrical appliances, which are carried out by a taxable person under VAT law whose principal activity consists in the sale of household electrical appliances to consumers, constitute financial transactions, or are they to be treated as such pursuant to the principles of neutrality and non-distortion of competition, for the purposes of exclusion of the amount represented by them from the calculation of the deductible proportion, in accordance with Article 135(1)(b) and/or (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006? (1)



(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-701/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Malta, bank, financial supervision, national law, right to justice








C_2019406EN.01001701.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/17






Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)
(Case C-701/19 P)
(2019/C 406/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested order of the General Court;










—


declare that the application for annulment is admissible;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and










—


order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted Maltese law by assuming that all powers of the appellant and its board were transferred to the competent person.
Second plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal violated the guarantee of an effective remedy under European law.
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in assuming that the contested decision is a mere preparatory measure.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision as well as more generally the facts of the case.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of a possible consultation of the competent person with the directors.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of an involvement of a lawyer in the case.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of the contested decision being contained in a mere email.
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the application has not become devoid of purpose.
Case T-458/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark real nature — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, business management, dietary product, domestic animal, pet food, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01004902.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/49






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)
(Case T-458/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark real nature - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 413/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and P. Gentili, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2650/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign real nature as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2650/2017-2), in so far as registration as an EU trade mark of the word sign real nature was refused for the services ‘advertising; marketing services; organisational and business advice for franchise concepts; providing of business knowhow (franchising)’, in Class 35 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of those incurred by EUIPO. EUIPO to bear one third of its costs.







(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a Contracting Entity
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, wholesale trade








C_2019316EN.01002801.xml










20.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/28






Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2019/C 316/11)
On 8 April 2019 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 9 April 2019.
This request, made by Lietuvos energija UAB, concerns production and wholesale of electricity in Lithuania. Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out, shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 105 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 13 September 2019.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same sector or activity in Lithuania before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case T-47/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Psychological harassment — Disciplinary sanction — Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero — Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance — Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out — Requirement of impartiality — Right to be heard — Procedural irregularity — Consequences of the procedural irregularity)
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, administrator, demotion, disciplinary proceedings, pay scale, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2019406EN.01002802.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/28






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament
(Case T-47/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary sanction - Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero - Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the procedural irregularity)
(2019/C 406/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by V. Montebello-Demogeot and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 27 February 2017 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero and, secondly, annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 imposing on UZ the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders UZ and the Parliament to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.