do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-128/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003504.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission
(Case F-128/15) (1)

(2016/C 371/45)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 43.
Case F-70/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003503.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission
(Case F-70/14) (1)

(2016/C 371/44)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 388, 3/11/2014, p. 28.
Case F-19/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003501.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission
(Case F-19/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/42)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 123, 27/4/2013, p. 30.
Case C-473/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, expert's report ordered by a court, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2016419EN.01003101.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
(Case C-473/16)
(2016/C 419/40)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83/EC (1) be interpreted as not precluding a forensic psychologist’s expert opinion based on projective personality tests from being sought and evaluated, in relation to LGBTI applicants for asylum, when in order to formulate that opinion no questions are asked about the applicant for asylum’s sexual habits and that applicant is not subject to a physical examination?










2.


If the expert opinion referred to in question 1 may not be used as proof, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as meaning that when the asylum application is based on persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, neither the national administrative authorities nor the courts have any possibility of examining, by expert methods, the truthfulness of the applicant for asylum’s claims, irrespective of the particular characteristics of those methods?






(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).
Case T-621/16: Action brought on 29 August 2016 — České dráhy v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU control, competition policy, dominant position, fundamental rights, rail transport








C_2016392EN.01004601.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/46





Action brought on 29 August 2016 — České dráhy v Commission
(Case T-621/16)
(2016/C 392/60)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins ordering an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty;










—


order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of materials obtained during a previous inspection at the business premises of České dráhy which was carried out on the basis of an illegal decision. The European Commission could not use the materials thus obtained, not even for the adoption of the decision contested by the present action.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the materials on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted were obtained by the European Commission during a previous inspection, outside the framework of the subject of the inspection, and hence illegally.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the associated inspection by the European Commission constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s private sphere. The contested decision was adopted by the European Commission without legally available materials, the Commission defined the subject of the inspection unacceptably broadly, and it proceeded beyond the bounds of its investigative powers.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately delimit the subject and purpose of the inspection, inter alia in that it defines unacceptably broadly the period of time to which the inspection was to relate, and does not state proper reasons.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that because of the contested decision and the associated inspection there was an unacceptable interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).
Case F-85/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003401.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/34





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission
(Case F-85/12) (1)

(2016/C 371/40)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 295, 29/9/2012, p. 35.
Case F-57/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003502.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission
(Case F-57/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/43)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 226, 3/8/2013, p. 27.
Case F-18/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016371EN.01003402.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/34





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission
(Case F-18/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/41)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 114, 20/4/2013, p. 47.
Case C-474/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless
Date: 2016-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, social legislation, social-security harmonisation, temporary employment








C_2016441EN.01000801.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless
(Case C-474/16)
(2016/C 441/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Colmar

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

Question referred

Is the legal effect of an A1 certificate issued to a temporary-work agency, in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) by the institution designated by the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the employed worker, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, if it is found that the conditions under which the employee pursues the activity clearly do not fall within the substantive scope of the specific rules set out in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?


(1)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.