do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-79/21: Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Ryanair and AMS v Commission
Date: 2021-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Occitanie, State aid, airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, marketing, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence, subsidiary








C_2021110EN.01003501.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/35






Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Ryanair and AMS v Commission
(Case T-79/21)
(2021/C 110/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (AMS) (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating, and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision (EU) of 2 August 2019 on State aid SA.47867 2018/C (ex 2017/FC) granted by France to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services; (1) and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Articles 41 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration and the applicants’ rights of defense.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons by stating, in a corrigendum to the contested decision, that the market economy operator test was inapplicable after having found it applicable in a previous decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because the application in the contested decision of the ‘real need’ test was flawed.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously disregards the Montpellier region and the airport’s need for the marketing services.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Montpellier airport as a beneficiary of aid.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity.






(1)  OJ 2020 L 388, p. 1.
Case T-111/19: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Boshab v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded — Manifest error of assessment — Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures — Right to private and family life — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2021-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021098EN.01002001.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/20






Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Boshab v Council
(Case T-111/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)
(2021/C 98/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 314, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/152 of 3 February 2021 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Ponikve’ (PDO)
Date: 2021-02-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: County of Dubrovnik-Neretva, Croatia, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, white wine, wine of superior quality








L_2021046EN.01000101.xml










10.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 46/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/152
of 3 February 2021
         
conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Ponikve’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Ponikve’ forwarded by Croatia and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Ponikve’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Ponikve’ (PDO) is hereby protected.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 February 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 323, 1.10.2020, p. 12.
Case C-637/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 February 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of limit values for microparticles (PM10) in certain Hungarian zones — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ — Appropriate measures)
Date: 2021-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Central Hungary, EU emission allowance, Northern Hungary, Southern Transdanubia, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, pollution control, prevention of pollution








C_2021110EN.01000601.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/6






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 February 2021 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-637/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of limit values for microparticles (PM10) in certain Hungarian zones - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)
(2021/C 110/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen, K. Talabér-Ritz and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and A. Pokoraczki, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that:






—


by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value for concentrations of particulate matter PM10, first, from 1 January 2005 up to and including 2017, in the zone HU0001 — Budapest region and in the zone HU0008 — Sajó valley and, secondly, from 11 June 2011 up to and including 2017 (with the exception of 2014), in the zone HU0006 — Pécs, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligation under the provisions of Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and










—


by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the daily limit value for concentrations of particulate matter PM10 in those zones, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of the limit values is kept as short as possible;














2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.