do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-618/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — United Kingdom — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 45 TFEU — 2003 Act of Accession — Chapter 2 of Annex XII — Whether a Member State may derogate from Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 and Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC — Polish national who has not completed a period of 12 months’ registered work in the host Member State)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Accession Treaty, Poland, derogation from EU law, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, labour law, migrant worker








C_2018408EN.01000901.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — United Kingdom — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Case C-618/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - 2003 Act of Accession - Chapter 2 of Annex XII - Whether a Member State may derogate from Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 and Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC - Polish national who has not completed a period of 12 months’ registered work in the host Member State))
(2018/C 408/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rafal Prefeta

Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Operative part of the judgment

Chapter 2 of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as permitting, during the transitional period provided for by that act, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to exclude a Polish national, such as Mr Rafal Prefeta, from the benefits of Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, when that person has not satisfied the requirement imposed by national law of having completed an uninterrupted 12-month period of registered work in the United Kingdom.


(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-423/17: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, control of restrictive practices, electrical energy, energy grid, restriction on competition, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018427EN.01010301.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/103






Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
(Case T-423/17) (1)

(2018/C 427/136)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Case T-537/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Vialto Consulting v Commission
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, electronic publishing, fraud against the EU, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality








C_2018427EN.01008101.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/81






Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Vialto Consulting v Commission
(Case T-537/18)
(2018/C 427/108)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Vialto Consulting (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s contested decision, whereby the Commission imposed on the applicant a two-year exclusion and published information on that exclusion on its website;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 434 889,82, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 400 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;










—


order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the European Commission decision Ares (2018) 3463041, dated 29 June 2018, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996, as the European Commission assumes without justification that OLAF did not exceed its powers with respect to conduct of the inspection at the premises of Vialto.










2.


The second plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to the right to good administration and failure to state sufficient reasons.










3.


The third plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.










4.


The fourth plea in law is based on a breach of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state sufficient reasons, first, in that the European Commission imposed a two-year exclusion on Vialto, and, second, in that the Commission proceeded to publish information of that exclusion on its website.
Special Report No 23/2018 — ‘Air pollution: Our health still insufficiently protected’
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental law, public health








C_2018324EN.01001201.xml










13.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 324/12






Special Report No 23/2018
‘Air pollution: Our health still insufficiently protected’
(2018/C 324/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 23/2018 ‘Air pollution: Our health still insufficiently protected’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu