do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-269/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 May 2014  — Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law (EU), redemption, service concession








C_2014261EN.01001501.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy
(Case C-269/14)
2014/C 261/22
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy

Other parties: Suomen Taksiliitto ry, Turun Seudun Invataksit ry, Hämeen Taksi Oy, Itä-Suomen Maakunnallinen Taksi Oy, Kainuun Taksivälitys Oy, Keski-Suomen Taksi Oy, Lounais-Suomen Taxidata Oy, Pohjois-Suomen Taksi Oy

Questions referred







1)


Must the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning a service concession be understood as meaning that it does not extend to a complex arrangement which includes the payment of reimbursements within the authority’s organisational responsibility in the form of a direct reimbursement scheme and at the same time a system of booking journeys which is not within the authority’s responsibility?










2)


What significance should be attached to the indirect consequence of the scheme that the purpose of the booking system is to reduce the transport costs payable from public funds by the Kansaneläkelaitos?
Case T-378/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Salama v Council
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2014245EN.01002702.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/27





Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Salama v Council
(Case T-378/14)
2014/C 245/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.
Case T-377/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Ezz v Council
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2014245EN.01002701.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/27





Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Ezz v Council
(Case T-377/14)
2014/C 245/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.
Case T-376/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Yassin v Council
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2014245EN.01002601.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/26





Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Yassin v Council
(Case T-376/14)
2014/C 245/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.
Case C-261/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 30 May 2014  — Județul Bacău v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Structural Funds, award of contract, co-financing, economic support








C_2014292EN.01001601.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Județul Bacău v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice
(Case C-261/14)
2014/C 292/20
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Județul Bacău

Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

Questions referred







1)


Must the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) interpreted as meaning that financial corrections by Member States, if applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules concerning public contracts, are administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 (2) or are they administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(c) of that regulation?










2)


If the answer to the first question is to the effect that financial corrections are administrative penalties, it must be established whether the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty referred to in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 applies.










3)


If the answer to the first question is to the effect that financial corrections are administrative penalties, then in circumstances in which financial corrections have been applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules on public contracts, does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, prevent a Member State from applying financial corrections governed by an internal legislative measure which entered into force at a time after that at which it is maintained that the alleged infringement of the rules on public contracts took place?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
Case T-381/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
Date: 2014-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014261EN.01003801.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/38





Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
(Case T-381/14)
2014/C 261/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order:






—


to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Regulation N. 208/2014 of 5 March 2014;










—


to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014;














—


partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they do not conform to the Joint Proposal;










—


order the Council to bear the costs of this suit and award costs to the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-380/14, Pshonka v Council.