do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-706/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — UP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Serious illness — Application f for part-time work on medical grounds — Rejection of the application — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of disability — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Liability)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, discrimination based on disability, illness, incapacity for work, indemnification, part-time employment, right to justice, rights of the defence, worker with disabilities








C_2019082EN.01005202.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/52






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — UP v Commission
(Case T-706/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Serious illness - Application f for part-time work on medical grounds - Rejection of the application - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of disability - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Liability))
(2019/C 82/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UP (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission Decision of 26 April 2017 refusing to grant the applicant part-time work on medical grounds and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UP to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Case T-632/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Haeberlen v ENISA (Civil service — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other agents — Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 — Adjustments of salaries and pensions for 2011 and 2012 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Rules on social dialogue)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, European official, indemnification, pension scheme, principle of proportionality, remuneration of work, servant (EU), social dialogue (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019082EN.01004601.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/46






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Haeberlen v ENISA
(Case T-632/16) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other agents - Regulations (EU) Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 - Adjustments of salaries and pensions for 2011 and 2012 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on social dialogue))
(2019/C 82/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Thomas Haeberlen (Swisttal, Germany) (represented initially by L. Levi and A. Tymen, subsequently by L. Levi and last by L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of ENISA of 21 October 2015, ordering the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 3 133,19, following the application to his remuneration of the adjustment of 0 % for 2011 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the adjustment of 0.8 % for 2012 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and, second, compensation for the non-material harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Thomas Haeberlen to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Case T-537/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS — Temporary agents — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Right to be heard — Liability)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: harassment at work, indemnification, legal aid, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019082EN.01005101.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/51






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — De Loecker v EEAS
(Case T-537/17) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS - Temporary agents - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Right to be heard - Liability))
(2019/C 82/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J. N. Louis and N. de Montigny, then J. N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of 270 TFEU and seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 10 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 10 October 2016 rejecting Mr Stéphane De Loecker request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9206 — Equistone Partners Europe/Courir) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, company with share capital, economic concentration, footwear industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade, sports equipment








C_2018449EN.01003701.xml










13.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 449/37






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9206 — Equistone Partners Europe/Courir)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 449/10)

1.   
On 4 December 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Equistone Partners Europe S.A.S (‘EPE SAS’, France),










—


Courir France S.A.S (‘Courir’, France).




EPE SAS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Courir.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


EPE SAS is an investment firm established in the form of a simplified joint stock company with investments in companies with enterprise values of between EUR 50 and 500 million,










—


Courir is active on retail of footwear and to a lesser extent of sportswear and accessories in specialised stores.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9206 — Equistone Partners Europe/Courir
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping duty in force on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, building materials, business name, ceramics, import (EU), originating product








C_2018449EN.01003601.xml










13.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 449/36






Notice concerning the anti-dumping duty in force on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
(2018/C 449/09)
Imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 (1).
Tianjin (TEDA) Honghui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd, TARIC additional code B221, a company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies of 30,6 %, informed the Commission that it had changed its name as set out below.
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous name.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179.
Therefore, the reference in the Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 to:






Tianjin (TEDA) Honghui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd


B221





should be read as







Tianjin Honghui Creative Technology Co., Ltd


B221




The TARIC additional code B221 previously attributed to Tianjin (TEDA) Honghui Industry & Trade Co. Ltd shall apply to Tianjin Honghui Creative Technology Co., Ltd.


(1)  OJ L 307, 23.11.2017, p. 25.
Case T-743/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CX v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — Rights of the defence — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Actual damage — Causal link)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, indemnification, pension scheme, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019082EN.01004801.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/48






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CX v Commission
(Case T-743/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - Rights of the defence - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability - Actual damage - Causal link))
(2019/C 82/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CX (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer.)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFUE seeking, first, annulment of the Decision of 16 October 2013 in which the Commission found that the applicant was guilty of two instances of serious misconduct and, consequently, removed him from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the Commission removed CX from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-5/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9139 — Haier/Candy) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, household article, household electrical appliance, manufactured goods, merger control, supply








C_2019039EN.01001001.xml










1.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/10






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9139 — Haier/Candy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 39/02)
On 13 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9139. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-514/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Marin-Simion Sut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4(6) — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Offence underlying the imposition of a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State being punishable in the executing Member State by fine only)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, fine, imprisonment, offence, residence








C_2019065EN.01001402.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/14






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Marin-Simion Sut
(Case C-514/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4(6) - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Offence underlying the imposition of a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State being punishable in the executing Member State by fine only))
(2019/C 65/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Marin-Simion Sut

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence resides in the executing Member State and has family, social and working ties in that Member State, the executing judicial authority may, for reasons related to the social rehabilitation of that person, refuse to execute that warrant, despite the fact that the offence which provides the basis for that warrant is, under that national law of the executing Member State, punishable by fine only, provided that, in accordance with its national law, that fact does not prevent the custodial sentence imposed on the person requested from actually being enforced in that Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case T-739/17: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Euracoal and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Best available techniques conclusions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, exchange of information, industrial pollution, pollution control, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, technological change, turbine








C_2019065EN.01003701.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/37






Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Euracoal and Others v Commission
(Case T-739/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Best available techniques conclusions - Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2019/C 65/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal) (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV (Cologne, Germany), Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG (Cottbus, Germany), Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: W. Spieth and N. Hellermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE), the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice, a.s., and Saale Energie GmbH, Sev.en EC, a.s., Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, a.s., the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Client Earth.










3.


The Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH and eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Euracoal, Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft, eins energie in sachsen, the Commission, PGE, the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice and Saale Energie, Sev.en EC, Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, the EEB and Client Earth shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Case T-290/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Peach and nectarine markets — Disruption during the 2014 season — Russian embargo — Temporary exceptional support measures for producers — Delegated Regulations (EU) Nos 913/2014 and 923/2014 — Rules of law intended to confer rights upon individuals — Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration — Sufficiently serious breach — Causal link)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU agricultural market, Russia, aid to agriculture, indemnification, international sanctions, market stabilisation, producer organisation, right to justice, stone fruit








C_2019082EN.01004201.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/42






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission
(Case T-290/16) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Peach and nectarine markets - Disruption during the 2014 season - Russian embargo - Temporary exceptional support measures for producers - Delegated Regulations (EU) Nos 913/2014 and 923/2014 - Rules of law intended to confer rights upon individuals - Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration - Sufficiently serious breach - Causal link))
(2019/C 82/47)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fruits de Ponent, SCCL (Alcarràs, Spain) (represented by M. Roca Junyent, J. Mier Albert, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, and subsequently by I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by three of the applicant’s members on account of acts and omissions of the Commission, in the context of the adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 of 21 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of peaches and nectarines (OJ 2014 L 248, p. 1) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 of 29 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 (OJ 2014 L 259, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fruits de Ponent, SCCL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.