do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-9/14: Action brought on 1 February 2014  — ZZ v EIB
Date: 2014-02-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, report, staff assessment








C_2014212EN.01004401.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/44





Action brought on 1 February 2014 — ZZ v EIB
(Case F-9/14)
2014/C 212/56
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and in so far as it sets his objectives for 2013, annulment of the guidelines for that report and, lastly, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

Form of order sought







—


Annul:






—


the decision adopted on 18 December 2012 by the Appeals Committee, referring all documents back to that body and establishing the criteria which must be used by the Committee when adopting a new decision;










—


the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in ‘Note to Staff No 722 PERSONNEL/S&D/D&P/2012-198’ of 5 December 2012 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2012 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be summarised in a certain way but do not identify the criteria which must be used by the appraiser;














—


In the alternative, annul:






—


the whole of the staff report for 2012, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and, lastly, the part in which objectives are set for 2013;










—


all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources of May 2012 entitled ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’;














—


In any event, order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage (within the period specified), and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of those costs and of the sums awarded.
Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings
Date: 2014-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, ordinary court of law, preliminary issue, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2014030EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/1






RECOMMENDATIONS

to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings
2014/C 30/01
The English version of these recommendations has already been published in Official Journal C 338 of 6 November 2012.
Case T-67/14: Action brought on 1 February 2014 — Viraj Profiles v Council
Date: 2014-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, India, anti-dumping duty, economic consequence, import (EU), originating product, production cost, steel, wire








C_2014112EN.01004801.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/48





Action brought on 1 February 2014 — Viraj Profiles v Council
(Case T-67/14)
2014/C 112/61
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Viraj Profiles Ltd (Maharashtra, India) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 (OJ L 298, p. 1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India, as far as it applies to Viraj Profiles Limited;










—


Order the Council, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Council in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the cost of production calculated in the Contested Regulation has been adjusted in a way that is manifestly erroneous, in breach of Article 2(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11) and (12) of the basic regulation. The EU institutions have applied an upward adjustment under a methodology which when followed yields an adjustment lower than the one disclosed by the Commission. The adjustment also includes items that should not be included in the cost of production of the Applicant. The dumping margin calculated on the basis of this erroneous methodology breaches Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the finding that the injury suffered by the Union industry is caused by Indian imports is manifestly erroneous, in that it does not consider the impact of Chinese imports, which were the main source of injury in the period considered and broke the causal link between dumped Indian imports and the injury, and the EU institutions performed no non-attribution analysis, in breach of Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence on causation provided in the complaint justifying the initiation of the investigation in breach of Articles 5(2), (3), (7) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 24, 25.1.2014
Date: 2014-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2014031EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/1





2014/C 31/01
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union



OJ C 24, 25.1.2014



Past publications


OJ C 15, 18.1.2014


OJ C 9, 11.1.2014


OJ C 377, 21.12.2013


OJ C 367, 14.12.2013


OJ C 359, 7.12.2013


OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Corrigendum to Public holidays in 2014: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions ( OJ C 27, 30.1.2014 )
Date: 2014-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EEA joint institution, EFTA countries, public holiday








C_2014030EN.01001201.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/12





Corrigendum to Public holidays in 2014: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 27 of 30 January 2014
)
2014/C 30/07
On the cover and on page 4:
Public holidays in 2014: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions, published under the header ‘European Commission’, should have been published under the header ‘EFTA Surveillance Authority’.