do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-286/23: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – OT v Council (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of leading businessperson – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Plea of illegality – Error of assessment – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Right to an effective remedy)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202406258EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6258


28.10.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – OT v Council


(Case T-286/23)
                (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list - Concept of ‘leading businessperson’ - Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP - Plea of illegality - Error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to an effective remedy)
(C/2024/6258)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, C. Sand and P. Blanchetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac, V. Piessevaux and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, Agents)

Re:

By his action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders OT to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 252, 17.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6258/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-145/23: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Eurosemillas v CPVO – Nador Cott Protection and Carpa Dorada (Nadorcott) (New varieties of plants – Community plant variety rights for the mandarin variety Nadorcott – Nullity proceedings – Burden of proof – Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: citrus fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right, proof








C_202406257EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6257


28.10.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Eurosemillas v CPVO – Nador Cott Protection and Carpa Dorada (Nadorcott)


(Case T-145/23)
                (1)

(New varieties of plants - Community plant variety rights for the mandarin variety ‘Nadorcott’ - Nullity proceedings - Burden of proof - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion)
(C/2024/6257)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Eurosemillas, SA (Cordoba, Spain) (represented by: J. Muñoz-Delgado y Mérida and M. Esteve Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: F. Mattina, M. García-Moncó Fuente and Á. Martínez López, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Nador Cott Protection SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: I. Pi Amorós, Á. Seijo Bar and J. Martínez Gimeno, lawyers), Carpa Dorada, SL (Almazora, Spain) (represented by: I. Pérez-Cabrero Ferrández, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 2 January 2023 (Case A002/2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eurosemillas, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 164, 8.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6257/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-32/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission (Dumping – Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 – Objective examination – Post-investigation period – Market segmentation – Other injury factors – Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Equal treatment – Union interest – Article 21 of Regulation 2016/1036 – Rights of the defence)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, import (EU), originating product, plywood, rights of the defence








C_202406424EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6424


4.11.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission


(Case T-32/22)
                (1)

(Dumping - Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 - Objective examination - Post-investigation period - Market segmentation - Other injury factors - Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Equal treatment - Union interest - Article 21 of Regulation 2016/1036 - Rights of the defence)
(C/2024/6424)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO (Kirov, Russia) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, R. Pethke and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Latvijas Finieris AS (Riga, Latvia), Paged Pisz sp. z o.o. (Pisz, Poland) (represented by: S. Ross, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (OJ 2021 L 394, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6424/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-3/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 –ZHLPK v Commission (Dumping – Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 – Adjustments – Commission – Export price – Transport costs – Article 2(10)(e), (i) and (k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Selling, general and administrative costs – Article 2(6) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Product concerned – Market segmentation – Causal link – Other injury factors – Article 3(3), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, export price, import (EU), originating product, plywood, transport price








C_202406422EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6422


4.11.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 –ZHLPK v Commission


(Case T-3/22)
                (1)

(Dumping - Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 - Adjustments - Commission - Export price - Transport costs - Article 2(10)(e), (i) and (k) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Selling, general and administrative costs - Article 2(6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Product concerned - Market segmentation - Causal link - Other injury factors - Article 3(3), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036)
(C/2024/6422)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zheshartsky LPK OOO (ZHLPK) (Zheshart, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, E. Gergondet and A. Nosowicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, R. Pethke and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Latvijas Finieris AS (Riga, Latvia), Paged Pisz sp. z o.o. (Pisz, Poland) (represented by: S. Ross, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (OJ 2021 L 394, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zheshartsky LPK OOO (ZHLPK) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6422/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-2/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha and Others v Commission (Dumping – Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 – Adjustment – Export price – Single economic entity – Commission contracts – Normal value – Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis – Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Selling, general and administrative costs – Dividends – Management costs – Article 2(6) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Product concerned – Market segmentation – Causal link – Other injury factors – Article 3(3), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, export price, import (EU), originating product, plywood








C_202406248EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6248


28.10.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2024 – Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha and Others v Commission


(Case T-2/22)
                (1)

(Dumping - Imports of birch plywood originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 - Adjustment - Export price - Single economic entity - Commission contracts - Normal value - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Selling, general and administrative costs - Dividends - Management costs - Article 2(6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Product concerned - Market segmentation - Causal link - Other injury factors - Article 3(3), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036)
(C/2024/6248)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha NAO (Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha, Russia) and the six other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Iriarte Ángel, L. García López, L. Rodríguez Jiménez, F. Rodríguez González and M. Casado Abarquero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, R. Pethke and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Latvijas Finieris AS (Riga, Latvia), Paged Pisz sp. z o.o. (Pisz, Poland) (represented by S. Ross, lawyer)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (OJ 2021 L 394, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sveza Verkhnyaya Sinyachikha NAO and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6248/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-589/24, Almirall: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2024 – Almirall BV, Almirall SA v Infinity Pharma BV, Pharmaline BV
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, pharmacist, retail trade








C_202407305EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7305


16.12.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2024 – Almirall BV, Almirall SA v Infinity Pharma BV, Pharmaline BV


(Case C-589/24, Almirall)

(C/2024/7305)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Almirall BV, Almirall SA

Defendants: Infinity Pharma BV, Pharmaline BV

Questions referred







1.


Does a directive-compliant interpretation of Paragraphs 18(5) and 40(3) of the Geneesmiddelenwet (Law on medicinal products), in the light of the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Medicinal Products Directive, (1) reconcile the fact that the assessment of one of the exceptions to the authorisation requirement laid down in national law is also based on a quantitative measure that has been concretised by a numerical criterion?










2.


Are the national authorities free to subject a medicinal product that falls under Article 3(2) of the Medicinal Products Directive, whereby the authorisation requirements regulated in Articles 6 and 40 of the same directive do not apply, to a national authorisation requirement on the basis of a quantitative condition regulated by national law and concretised by a numerical criterion?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to Questions 1 and 2 whether the Medicinal Products Directive provides for full harmonisation for the parts relevant to this case and, if so, does it provide for full harmonisation?










4.


To what extent is it relevant to the answers to Questions 1 and 2 that, according to the Dutch-language version, the exception set out in the second sentence of Article 40(2) of the Medicinal Products Directive applies ‘voor verstrekking in het klein’ (‘for supply at retail’) or, according to the English-, French- and Italian-language versions of the directive, appears to relate to a number of operations performed by the pharmacist in the context of retail?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC 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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7305/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Action brought on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-19/24)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, archives, documentary reference recording, exchange of information, information storage, technical standard, trade information








C_202406368EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6368


24.10.2024






Action brought on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-19/24)
(C/2024/6368)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Sigurbjörn Bernharð Edvardsson, Sigrún Ingibjörg Gísladóttir and Melpo-Menie Joséphidès, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Avenue de Arts 19H, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bcc of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859 of 10 June 2022 amending the implementing technical standards laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248/2012 as regards the format for applications for registration as trade repositories and for applications for extension of registration as trade repositories), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


By this application, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) seeks a declaration from the Court that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 31bcc of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, as adapted by Protocol 1 to that Agreement, part of its internal legal order, as required by Article 7 EEA.










—


Iceland did not reply to ESA’s letter of formal notice of 18 August 2023.










—


ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on 21 February 2024 giving Iceland two months in which to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion.










—


No response from Iceland was received by ESA within the time-frame specified in the reasoned opinion.










—


Since Iceland had not complied with the reasoned opinion by the deadline set therein, i.e. by 21 April 2024, ESA decided to refer the matter to the Court, pursuant to Article 31 SCA.










—


ESA notes that, at the point of lodging the present application, Iceland had not informed ESA of any measures adopted to make the Act part of its internal legal order. Moreover, ESA was not in possession of any other information which indicated that the act had been made part of Iceland’s internal legal order.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6368/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.113219
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, farming sector, fishing industry, forestry policy








C_202405472EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5472


11.9.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.113219
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/5472)








Date of adoption of the decision


17.7.2024




Aid number


SA.113219




Member State


Belgium




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Methode garantieberekening in het kader van de generieke PMV-garantieregeling in Vlaanderen voor landbouwbedrijven




Legal basis


Decreet van 10 december 2021 houdende een generieke waarborgregeling voor ondernemingen




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid for investment in connection with the processing of agricultural products and the marketing of agricultural products




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


 




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2036




Economic sectors


AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING




Name and address of the granting authority







Participatiemaatschappij Vlaanderen




Oude Graanmarkt 63, 1000 Brussel








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5472/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Action brought on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-21/24)
Date: 2024-09-11
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, contract, credit institution, financial instrument, financial legislation, financial transaction, trading margin








C_202406367EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6367


24.10.2024






Action brought on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-21/24)
(C/2024/6367)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 September 2024 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Sigurbjörn Bernharð Edvardsson, Sigrún Ingibjörg Gísladóttir and Melpo-Menie Joséphidès, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Avenue de Arts 19H, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bcs of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/314 of 25 October 2022 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 as regards the date of application of certain risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


By this application, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) seeks a declaration from the Court that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 31bcs of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, as adapted by Protocol 1 to that Agreement, part of its internal legal order, as required by Article 7 EEA.










—


Iceland did not reply to ESA’s letter of formal notice of 18 August 2023.










—


ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on 21 February 2024 giving Iceland two months in which to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion.










—


No response from Iceland was received by ESA within the time-frame specified in the reasoned opinion.










—


Since Iceland had not complied with the reasoned opinion by the deadline set therein, i.e. by 21 April 2024, ESA decided to refer the matter to the Court, pursuant to Article 31 SCA.










—


ESA notes that, at the point of lodging the present application, Iceland had not informed ESA of any measures adopted to make the Act part of its internal legal order. Moreover, ESA was not in possession of any other information which indicated that the act had been made part of Iceland’s internal legal order.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6367/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)