do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-41/15 DISS II: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL (Civil service — CEPOL staff — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL — Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) — Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff — Contractual consequences — Need for consent from members of staff — Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment — Legitimate expectations — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, occupational migration, right to justice, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_2016191EN.01004702.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/47





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL
(Case F-41/15 DISS II) (1)

((Civil service - CEPOL staff - Temporary staff - Contract staff - Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL - Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) - Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff - Contractual consequences - Need for consent from members of staff - Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment - Legitimate expectations - Principle of sound administration))
(2016/C 191/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: FN, FP and FQ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police College (represented by: F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) which resulted in either the applicants resigning from their positions at the agency or the applicants relocating from London to Budapest and thereby suffering financial loss, and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FN, FP and FQ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College.






(1)  OJ C 178, 01/06/2015, p. 28.
Case F-94/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Staff Committee — Election of the Staff Committee members — Validity — Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — EEAS electoral regulations — First ballot — Quorum not attained — Extension of the polling period — Supplementary extension of the polling period — Failure to organise a second ballot — Unlawfulness)
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, invalidity of an election, staff regulations (EU), workers' representation








C_2016191EN.01004902.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/49





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS
(Case F-94/15) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Staff Committee - Election of the Staff Committee members - Validity - Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - EEAS electoral regulations - First ballot - Quorum not attained - Extension of the polling period - Supplementary extension of the polling period - Failure to organise a second ballot - Unlawfulness))
(2016/C 191/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oren Wolff (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T.Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: initially M. Silva and S. Marquardt, Agents, then G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, and lastly G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s challenge brought against the result of the elections to the EEAS Staff Committee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid;










2.


Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff.






(1)  OJ C 294, 07/09/2015, p. 83.
Case C-205/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, countervailing charge, equal treatment, import (EU), originating product, photovoltaic cell, right to justice, semi-metal








C_2016232EN.01000601.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/6





Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
(Case C-205/16 P)
(2016/C 232/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-142/14;










—


rule on the substance and annul Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and










—


order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of countervailing measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious subsidisation, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 2.
The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.


(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

OJ L 325, p. 66
Council Decision of 11 April 2016 renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, Cedefop, Cyprus, appointment of members, board of directors








C_2016137EN.01000201.xml










19.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 11 April 2016
renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2016/C 137/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Austrian government,
Having regard to the nominee submitted to the Council by the Commission as regards the Employers’ representatives,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 14 July 2015 (2) and of 14 September 2015 (3), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018.










(2)


A member’s seat is available for Austria on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mr Reinhard NÖBAUER.










(3)


A member’s seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of representatives of Employers’ organisations has become vacant for Cyprus as a result of the resignation of Mr Michael PILIKOS.










(4)


The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following people are hereby appointed members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of its term of office, which runs until 17 September 2018:
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES:






AUSTRIA


Mr Eduard STAUDECKER




REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS’ ORGANISATIONS:






CYPRUS


Mr Michael ANTONIOU




Article 2
This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 11 April 2016.


For the Council


The President

M.H.P. VAN DAM




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 232, 16.7.2015, p. 2.

(3)  OJ C 305, 16.9.2015, p. 2.
Case C-571/14: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, establishment, footwear industry, foreign enterprise, import (EU), originating product








C_2016279EN.01002302.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/23





Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
(Case C-571/14) (1)

(2016/C 279/31)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case C-199/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
Date: 2016-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family law, foreign national, illegal migration, removal, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum, rights of the defence








C_2016211EN.01003601.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
(Case C-199/16)
(2016/C 211/46)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Max-Manuel Nianga

Question referred

Is Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and having regard to the right to be heard in any proceedings, which forms an integral part of respect for the rights of the defence, a general principle of EU law, as applied in the context of that directive, (1) to be interpreted as requiring national authorities to take account of the best interests of the child, family life and the state of health of the third-country national concerned when issuing a return decision, referred to in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) of the directive, or a removal decision, as provided for in Article 3(5) and Article 8 of the directive?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.