do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-401/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge
Date: 2014-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, appeals by private individuals, application of EU law, constitutional court, court of arbitration, jurisdiction








C_2015016EN.01001602.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge
(Case C-401/14)
(2015/C 016/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bernard Leloup

Defendant: État belge
By order of 11 November 2014, the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case C-406/13: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 November 2014  — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2014-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, domestic market, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, natural gas








C_2015056EN.01001002.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/10





Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-406/13) (1)

(2015/C 056/13)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Case C-530/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Discrimination based on age — National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)
Date: 2014-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European social policy, age discrimination, equal treatment, traineeship, working conditions








C_2015016EN.01000801.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres
(Case C-530/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Discrimination based on age - National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)
(2015/C 016/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Leopold Schmitzer

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ending age-based discrimination, takes into account periods of training and service prior to the age of 18 but which, at the same time, introduces — only for civil servants who suffered that discrimination — a three-year extension of the period required in order to progress from the first to the second incremental step in each job category and each salary group.










2.


Articles 9 and 16 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a civil servant who has suffered age-based discrimination — resulting from the method by which the reference date taken into account for the calculation of his advancement was fixed — must be able to rely on Article 2 of that directive in order to challenge the discriminatory effects of the extension of the period for advancement, even though, at his request, that reference date has been revised.






(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
Case F-52/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 11 November 2014  — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint — Annulment — Action for damages)
Date: 2014-11-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2014462EN.01003302.xml










22.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/33





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB
(Case F-52/11) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Report of the Committee of Inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint - Annulment - Action for damages))
(2014/C 462/47)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: EIB (represented by: T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, an application to annul a letter from the President of the Bank stating that, following the Panel’s decision to reject the complaint brought by the applicant alleging psychological harassment, no action was necessary, and other decisions in relation to the inquiry into the alleged psychological harassment. Secondly, an application for a declaration that the applicant was the victim of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 1 September 2010 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint alleging psychological harassment;










2.


Orders the European Investment Bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 3  000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.






(1)  OJ C 186, 25/6/2011, p. 37.