ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Haeberlen v ENISA

(Case T-632/16) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other agents - Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 - Adjustments of salaries and pensions for 2011 and 2012 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on social dialogue))

(2019/C 82/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Haeberlen (Swisttal, Germany) (represented initially by L. Levi and A. Tymen, subsequently by L. Levi and last by L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of ENISA of 21 October 2015, ordering the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 3 133,19, following the application to his remuneration of the adjustment of 0 % for 2011 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the adjustment of 0.8 % for 2012 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and, second, compensation for the non-material harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Thomas Haeberlen to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-411/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to honour and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and G. Étienne, subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, and finally S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of the subsequent measures giving effect to that decision, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission

(Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Belgium - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid granted - Tax ruling - Excess profit exemption - Fiscal autonomy of the Member States - Concept of an aid scheme - Further implementing measures)

(2019/C 131/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-131/16: Kingdom of Belgium (represented initially by: C. Pochet, M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, and subsequently by C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-263/16: Magnetrol International (Zele, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, and subsequently by P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in Case T-131/16: Ireland (represented initially by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, subsequently by K. Duggan, M. Browne and A. Joyce and lastly by A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by P. Gallagher, M. Collins, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty and S. Kingston, Barristers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, and by Magnetrol International;

4. Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — GQ and Others v Commission

(Case T-525/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 31 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations - Assistants in transition - Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations only allowed within the career streams corresponding to the type of post occupied - Access to the ‘senior assistant’ (AST 10) type of post exclusively in accordance with the procedure under Article 4 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Loss of eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 93/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: GQ and the 7 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, subsequently by G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser and finally by G. Gattinara and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by M. Dean and N. Chemaï, subsequently by J. Steele, L. Deneys and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents); and the Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E Rebasti and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants in the ‘senior assistant’ type of post, with the consequence that, with effect from 1 January 2014, they were no longer eligible for promotion to the next higher grade, as confirmed by the decisions of that authority of 3 July 2014 rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants between 11 and 28 March 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GQ and the other officials of the European Commission whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-111/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Ardalic and Others v Council

(Case T-523/16 and T-542/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulation - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Link between the grant of those benefits and expatriate or foreign resident status - Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and of travelling time)

(2019/C 220/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jakov Ardalic (Brussels, Belgium) and the 11 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents),

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions no longer to grant the applicants, as from 1 January 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses so that they may maintain a relationship with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Mr Jakov Ardalic and the other officials or members of staff of the Council of the European Union whose names appear in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs;

4. Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-100/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Pometon v Commission

(Case T-433/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements and concerted practices - European steel abrasives market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price coordination throughout the EEA - Chronologically staggered ‘hybrid’ procedure - Presumption of innocence - Principle of impartiality - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Evidence of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Duration of the infringement - Fine - Exceptional adjustment of the basic amount - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2019/C 164/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pometon SpA (Maerne di Martellago, Italy) (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives);

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA at EUR 3 873 375;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

(Case T-181/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB

(Case T-466/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Time limit for bringing an action - Delay - Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, and subsequently by J. Seitz and D. Flore, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, secondly, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);

3. Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission

(Case T-399/16) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Wireless telecommunications - Retail market for mobile telecommunication services - Market for wholesale access and call origination on public mobile networks - Acquisition of Telefónica Europe by Hutchison - Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market - Oligopolistic market - Significant impediment to effective competition - Non-coordinated effects - Burden of proof - Standard of proof - Market shares - Effects of the merger on prices - Quantitative analysis of upward pricing pressure - Close competitors - Important competitive constraint - Important competitive force - Network-sharing agreements - Level of concentration - Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index - Error of law - Error of assessment)

(2020/C 230/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Wessely, O. Brouwer, lawyers, A. Woods, M. Davis, I. Ditchfield, S. Prichard, J. Aitken, R. Romney, M. Dickson and K. Asakura, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, G. Conte, M. Farley, J. Szczodrowski and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Jones, S. Brandon, S. Huijts, C. Blairs, M. Rahman, J. McInnes, M. Brown, B. Potterill, S. Cardell, C. Brannigan, S. Munday, C. Short and A. Dadley, Agents, and R. Williams and J. Morrison, Barristers), EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Lindsay, Barrister, C. Chapman and J. Hulsmann, Solicitors)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2796 final of 11 May 2016 declaring incompatible with the internal market the concentration resulting from the acquisition of Telefónica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd (Case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica UK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 2796 final of 11 May 2016 declaring incompatible with the internal market the concentration resulting from the acquisition of Telefónica Europe Plc by Hutchison 3G UK Investments Ltd (Case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK/Telefónica UK);

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and EE Ltd to each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB

(Case T-323/16) (1)

(Economic and Monetary Union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the 2016 ex-ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Procedure for the adoption of the decision)

(2020/C 36/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Cooperativo Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and J. Beltrán de Lubiano Sáez de Urabain, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius, A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) to the extent that it concerns Banco Cooperativo Español, SA;

2. orders Banco Cooperativo Español and the SRB to bear their own costs;

3. orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HG v Commission

(Case T-693/16 P RENV-RX) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Posting to a third country - Family lodging provided by the administration - Non-compliance with the obligation to reside there with the family - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step - Making good of any damage suffered by the European Union - Article 22 of the Staff Regulations - Dismissal of the action on the merits - Setting aside on appeal - Judgment on appeal re-examined by the Court of Justice and set aside - Referral back to the General Court)

(2022/C 73/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15, EU:F:2016:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F-149/15);

2. Fixes the amount of compensation owed by HG to the European Union at the sum of EUR 80 000 on the date of delivery of this judgment;

3. Dismisses the action in Case F-149/15 as to the remainder;

4. Orders HG and the European Commission to bear their own costs in Cases F-149/15, T-693/16 P, T-440/18 RENV and T-693/16 P-RENV-RX.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA

(Case T-137/16 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid)

(2021/C 297/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents and M. Le Berre and G. Materna, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the REA, acting under powers delegated by the European Commission, to terminate the Grant Agreement for the Cossar project (No 252908) and requiring the applicant to repay the sums of EUR 36 508,37, EUR 58 031,38 and EUR 6 286,68, as well as to pay damages in the amount of EUR 5 803,14 and, second, reimbursement by the REA of the corresponding sums plus interest calculated as from the day of payment until the day of reimbursement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Uniwersytet Wrocławski to pay the costs relating, first, to the proceedings brought before the General Court and, second, to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.