do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-37/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, disciplinary proceedings, psychological harassment








C_2016048EN.01008802.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/88





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case F-37/12) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))
(2016/C 048/98)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he rejected, following the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel, the applicant’s complaint concerning psychological harassment and, on the other, the findings of the opinion of that Panel in so far as it does not find any facts of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 20 December 2011 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.






(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 24.
Case C-683/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, approximation of laws, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial aid, financial intervention, financial solvency, investment company, national implementing measure, sanction (EU)








C_2016078EN.01000701.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/7





Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-683/15)
(2016/C 078/08)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K.-P. Wojcik, M. Heller and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 130(1) of that directive;










—


impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2014/59/EU at the daily rate of EUR 51 456 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2014/59/EU expired on 31 December 2014.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1835 of 12 October 2015 defining the statute, seat and operational rules of the European Defence Agency (OJ L 266, 13.10.2015)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Defence Agency, operation of the Institutions








L_2015332EN.01015601.xml










18.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 332/156







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1835 of 12 October 2015 defining the statute, seat and operational rules of the European Defence Agency

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 266 of 13 October 2015
)


On pages 73 and 74; Annex II is replaced by the following:




                           ‘ANNEX II

CORRELATION TABLE







Decision 2011/411/CFSP


This Decision




Article 1


Article 1




Article 2


Article 2




Article 3


Article 3




Article 4


Article 4




Article 4(4)


—




Article 4(5)


Article 4(4)




Article 5


Article 5




—


Article 5(3)(g) to (i)




Article 6


Article 6




Article 7


Article 7




Article 8


Article 8




Article 9


Article 9




Article 9(1)(b)


—




Article 9(1)(c)


Article 9(1)(b)




—


Article 9(1)(c)




Article 9(1)(p)


Article 9(1)(r)




—


Article 9(1)(p) and (q)




Article 10


Article 10




—


Article 10(2)




Article 10(2)


Article 10(3)




Article 10(3)


Article 10(4)




Article 10(3)(e)


—




Article 10(3)(f)


Article 10(4)(e)




Article 10(3)(g)


Article 10(4)(f)




Article 10(3)(h)


Article 10(4)(g)




Article 10(3)(i)


Article 10(4)(h)




Article 10(3)(j)


Article 10(4)(i)




Article 10(3)(k)


Article 10(4)(j)




Article 10(4)


Article 10(5)




Article 10(5)


Article 10(6)




Article 10(6)


Article 10(7)




Article 11


Article 11




—


Article 11(4)(a) and (b)




—


Article 11(5)




Article 11(4)


Article 11(6)




Article 12


—




—


Article 12




Article 13


Article 13




—


Article 13(2)




Article 13(2)


Article 13(3)




Article 13(3)


Article 13(4)




Article 13(4)


Article 13(5)




Article 13(5)


Article 13(6)




Article 13(6)


Article 13(7)




Article 13(7)


Article 13(8)




Article 13(8)


Article 13(9)




Article 13(9)


Article 13(10)




Article 13(10)


Article 13(11)




Article 14


Article 14




Article 14(3)


—




Article 15


Article 15




Article 16


Article 16




Article 17


Article 17




Article 18


Article 18




Article 18(3)


—




—


Article 18(3)




Article 19


Article 19




Article 20


Article 20




—


Article 21




Article 21


Article 22




Article 22


Article 23




Article 22(4)


Article 24(4), second sentence




Article 23


Article 24




Article 23(2)


Article 24(4), first sentence




—


Article 25




Article 24


Article 26




Article 24(6) to (8)


—




—


Article 24(6)




Article 25


Article 27




—


Article 27(3)




Article 26


Article 28




Article 27


Article 29




Article 28


Article 30




—


Article 31




Article 29


Article 32




Article 30


Article 33




Article 31


Article 34




Article 32


Article 35’
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objectionsText with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, State aid, control of State aid








C_2015426EN.01000801.xml










18.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/8





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2015/C 426/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


24.09.2015




Aid number


SA.40992 (2015/N)




Member State


Austria




Region


OESTERREICH


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Förderung der Zusammenarbeit gemäß Art. 35 VO 1305/2013 im Rahmen des Programms LE 14-20




Legal basis


Sonderrichtlinie des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft zur Umsetzung von Projektmaßnahmen im Rahmen des Österreichischen Programms für ländliche Entwicklung
2014 — 2020 ‘LE-Projektförderungen’, GZ BMLFUW-LE.1.1.1/0171-II/2/2014




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Other (please specify)




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 51 (in millions)
Annual budget: EUR 7,73 (in millions)




Intensity


50 %




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft




A-1010 Wien, Stubenring 1








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, air quality, industrial pollution, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions








C_2015425EN.01001901.xml










18.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/19





Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions
(2015/C 425/12)
On 17 December 2015, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2015) 9317 on the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Case T-753/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlaced letters G)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002602.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/26





Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlaced letters G)
(Case T-753/15)
(2016/C 078/37)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing four interlaced letters G — International registration designating the European Union No 1 090 048

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2015 in Case R 1703/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;










—


order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-9/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2012 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: assistant, damages, promotion, psychological harassment, report, staff assessment








C_2016048EN.01009101.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/91





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case F-9/14) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2012 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 048/102)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, firstly, for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 as regards the sections concerning ‘appraisal’, ‘assessment’ and ‘setting of objectives for 2013’ and in so far as it does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and, next, annulment of the note to staff No 722 of 5 December 2012 and the 2012 Guide to Staff Appraisal Procedure or a declaration that they are inapplicable and, secondly, a finding of psychological harassment of the applicant. Finally, application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 23 October 2013;










2.


Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2012 and all connected, consequent and prior acts;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 44.
Case T-75/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, export price, import (EU), machinery, originating product








C_2016048EN.01004201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/42





Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Polska v Commission
(Case T-75/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
(2016/C 048/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8826 final, C(2011) 8803 final and K(2011) 8801 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case F-104/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation)
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, disciplinary proceedings, psychological harassment








C_2016048EN.01009002.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/90





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case F-104/13)
((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))
(2016/C 048/101)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he firstly failed to adopt any measure concerning the psychological harassment suffered by the applicant for 20 years; secondly, justified all the facts complained of and, thirdly, requires the applicant to work with a ‘mentor’ and ‘business partner’ and, on the other, the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel of 14 March 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 29 April 2013 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.
Case T-730/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2015 by DI against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 October 2015 in Case F-113/13 DI v EASO
Date: 2015-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, dismissal, equal treatment, right to justice








C_2016098EN.01004601.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/46





Appeal brought on 18 December 2015 by DI against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 October 2015 in Case F-113/13 DI v EASO
(Case T-730/15 P)
(2016/C 098/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: DI (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 October 2015 in case F-113/13;










—


admit the current appeal;










—


annul the EASO decision to dismiss the appellant, and consequently to oblige EASO to annul all legal effects of the said decision and to re-do the factual status accordingly;










—


oblige the EASO to pay the appellant the amount of EUR 90 000 as material damages, and the amount of EUR 500 000 as moral damages; and










—


oblige EASO to pay all costs of the appellant related to the legal representation in front of the Civil Service Tribunal concerning the case F-113/13, and related to the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the application of the appellant was admissible and grounded as it respects the correspondence between the pleas, reasons and facts mentioned within the complaint sent during the administrative procedure and the ones presented in detail to the Civil Service Tribunal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle for access for a fair trial and lack of fair analysis in the pre-litigation phase. The complaint of the appellant during the administrative procedure was rejected by the same person who initially decided to dismiss the appellant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the equal treatment principle by the Civil Service Tribunal.