title: Case T-206/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Egger Beschichtungswerk Marienmünster v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/57

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Egger Beschichtungswerk Marienmünster v Commission
      (Case T-206/19)
      (2019/C 206/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Egger Beschichtungswerk Marienmünster GmbH & Co. KG (Marienmünster-Vörden, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-207/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Yara Brunsbüttel v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/59

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Yara Brunsbüttel v Commission
      (Case T-207/19)
      (2019/C 206/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Yara Brunsbüttel GmbH (Büttel, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders the repayment of more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-208/19: Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Nolte Holzwerkstoff v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/60

      Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Nolte Holzwerkstoff v Commission
      (Case T-208/19)
      (2019/C 206/59)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Nolte Holzwerkstoff GmbH & Co. KG (Germersheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-216/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Glatfelter Steinfurt v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/64

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Glatfelter Steinfurt v Commission
      (Case T-216/19)
      (2019/C 206/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Glatfelter Steinfurt GmbH (Steinfurt, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-217/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Schott v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/65

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Schott v Commission
      (Case T-217/19)
      (2019/C 206/62)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Schott AG (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-218/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Evonik Degussa v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/67

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Evonik Degussa v Commission
      (Case T-218/19)
      (2019/C 206/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-219/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Julius Schulte Trebsen v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/69

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Julius Schulte Trebsen v Commission
      (Case T-219/19)
      (2019/C 206/64)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Julius Schulte Trebsen GmbH & Co. KG (Trebsen, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the year 2012;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders the repayment of more than 20 % of published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-220/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Mitsubishi Polyester Film v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/70

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Mitsubishi Polyester Film v Commission
      (Case T-220/19)
      (2019/C 206/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.


title: Case T-221/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Nippon Gases Deutschland v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/71

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Nippon Gases Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-221/19)
      (2019/C 206/66)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Nippon Gases Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-222/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Sappi Alfeld v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/73

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Sappi Alfeld v Commission
      (Case T-222/19)
      (2019/C 206/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sappi Alfeld GmbH (Alfeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-223/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/74

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) v Commission
      (Case T-223/19)
      (2019/C 206/68)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-224/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Metsä Tissue v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/76

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Metsä Tissue v Commission
      (Case T-224/19)
      (2019/C 206/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Metsä Tissue GmbH (Kreuzau, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges and baseload consumers with more than 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders the repayment of more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-225/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Linde Gas v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/78

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Linde Gas v Commission
      (Case T-225/19)
      (2019/C 206/70)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Linde Gas Produktionsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Pullach, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders the repayment of more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-226/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Radici Chimica Deutschland v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/79

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Radici Chimica Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-226/19)
      (2019/C 206/71)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Radici Chimica Deutschland GmbH (Elsteraue, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.


title: Case T-227/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Ronal v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/80

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Ronal v Commission
      (Case T-227/19)
      (2019/C 206/72)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ronal GmbH (Forst, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC.. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-228/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/82

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann v Commission
      (Case T-228/19)
      (2019/C 206/73)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.


title: Case T-230/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Evonik Functional Solutions v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/85

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Evonik Functional Solutions v Commission
      (Case T-230/19)
      (2019/C 206/75)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Evonik Functional Solutions GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28. Mai 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders the repayment of more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

         (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-235/19: Action brought on 4 April 2019 — HIM v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/87

      Action brought on 4 April 2019 — HIM v Commission
      (Case T-235/19)
      (2019/C 206/76)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Health Investment Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by P. Zeegers, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the present action admissible and well founded; and, accordingly,

                  —

                  Rule that the applicant is not liable to pay debit notes Nos 3241901815 (EUR 94 445.00) and 3241901886 (EUR 121 517.00) issued on 4 February 2019, and in so far as necessary, declare those debit notes invalid in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs and expenses, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 8 000.

         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 failure to disclose the final audit report and the fact that it was impossible for the applicant to put forward its point of view in full knowledge of the facts. The failure to disclose means that the debit notes issued by the Commission are not substantiated.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the auditor and the Commission to comply with the rules determining eligible costs. The applicant disputes the position of the Commission which, by its decision, allegedly added a requirement which was not provided for in the legislation applicable to telework matters in particular. The Commission’s conduct was therefore inconsistent with that which it had itself adopted during previous audits involving the applicant.


title: Case T-242/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/87

      Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission
      (Case T-242/19)
      (2019/C 206/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 (1), in as far as it relates to the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the aluminium raw material purchases of the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant state interference and would have not substantially reflected market values pursuant to the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the chapeau of Article 2(10) as well as Articles 2(10)(d)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 since it would have failed to carry out a fair comparison by not adjusting normal value for the differences in level of trade between export prices and normal value and by not providing the applicant with the information necessary for the applicant to quantify its adjustment claim.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 108).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).


title: Case T-243/19: Action brought on 9 Avril 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/88

      Action brought on 9 Avril 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission
      (Case T-243/19)
      (2019/C 206/78)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 (1), as far as the applicant is concerned; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that a subsidy would have been granted through the applicant’s purchase of engines and batteries, and thereby would have violated Articles 1(1) and 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2). This plea consists of four limbs:

                              —

                              the defendant would have failed to establish that the Government of China would have entrusted or directed the Chinese engine and batteries suppliers of the applicant;

                              —

                              the defendant would have failed to prove that any alleged financial contribution from the Government of China would have conferred a benefit to the applicant;

                              —

                              the defendant would have based its conclusions in respect of the applicant on an erroneous application of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037; and

                              —

                              the defendant would have failed to prove the link between locally purchased engines and batteries and e-bikes exported to the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error in the calculation of the subsidy amount by wrongfully including benefits which would have been unrelated to e-bikes released for free circulation in the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by finding that the use of bank acceptance notes would have constituted a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish that the use of bank acceptance notes conferred a benefit to the applicant.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish the specificity of the alleged subsidy granted through bank acceptance notes and thereby violated Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant would have obtained a benefit through the acquisition of land use rights.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.

         (1)  1Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 5).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55).


title: Case T-244/19: Action brought on 11 April 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/90

      Action brought on 11 April 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)
      (Case T-244/19)
      (2019/C 206/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Café Camelo, SL (Villanueva del Pardillo, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camel Brand Co. Ltd (Zebbug, Malta)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 15 710 692

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2019 in Case R 1165/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision.

                  —

                  order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;


title: Case T-247/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Thunus and Others v EIB

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/91

      Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Thunus and Others v EIB
      (Case T-247/19)
      (2019/C 206/80)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and 7 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the action is admissible and well-founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

                  —

                  consequently,

                              —

                              annul the decision contained in the applicants’ payslips for the month of February 2018, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0.7% for the year 2018, and, therefore, the annulment of the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips;

                  —

                  therefore, order the defendant

                              —

                              to pay compensation for material damage (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2018, that is, an increase of 1.4% for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0.7% for 2018 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2018; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;

                  —

                  if necessary, should it fail to produce them voluntarily, order the defendant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, to produce the following documents:

                              —

                              the decision of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 18 July 2017 (CA/505/17);

                              —

                              the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018 (MC-021-ADM-15-2018);

                              —

                              the note from the management of Personnel of 25 January 2018 (CS/PERS-QMS/ACB/2018-0011);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely, first, as regards the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017, on two pleas in law and, second, as regards the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018, on three pleas in law, respectively.
      In respect of the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectation and acquired rights.

            In respect of the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of consultation with the Board.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

            As regards the claim for compensation, the applicants seek payment of the difference of salary due, that is 1.4% from 1 January 2018 (including the effect of that increase on financial benefits) plus late payment interest.


title: Case T-261/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/93

      Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)
      (Case T-261/19)
      (2019/C 206/81)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optima Naturals Srl (Gallarate, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark OptiMar — EU trade mark No 15 176 258

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2019 in Case R 1348/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-262/19: Action brought on 17 April 2019 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/93

      Action brought on 17 April 2019 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)
      (Case T-262/19)
      (2019/C 206/82)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a cup) — Application for registration No 15 963 994

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1153/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 may consequently be entered in the Register of the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and/or Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-264/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/94

      Action brought on 18 April 2019 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)
      (Case T-264/19)
      (2019/C 206/83)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: nanoPET Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘viscover’ — EU trade mark No 9 197 732

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 1288/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-265/19: Action brought on 19 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               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.


title: Case T-191/17: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2019 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/97

      Order of the General Court of 15 April 2019 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission
      (Case T-191/17) (1)

      (2019/C 206/86)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case T-202/18: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Bruel v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/97

      Order of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Bruel v Commission
      (Case T-202/18) (1)

      (2019/C 206/87)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case T-4/19: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/97

      Order of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)
      (Case T-4/19) (1)

      (2019/C 206/88)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.


title: Case T-353/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/35

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)
      (Case T-353/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 213/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Promeco NV (Kortrijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O'Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Aerts NV (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: G. Glas and T. Carmeliet, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2018 (Case R 459/2016–G) relating to invalidity proceedings between Promeco NV and Aerts NV.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     Promeco NV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

                  3.

                     Aerts NV shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.