do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-582/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Boshab and Others v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and to the prohibition of entry and transit — Inclusion of the names of the applicants on the list — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, removal, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019164EN.01004302.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/43






Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Boshab and Others v Council
(Case T-582/17) (1)

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and to the prohibition of entry and transit - Inclusion of the names of the applicants on the list - Rights of defence - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2019/C 164/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented: initially by P. Chansay Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, and subsequently by T. Bontinck, M. Forgeois, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Veiga and B. Driessen, and subsequently by B. Driessen and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 138 I, p. 1), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 138 I, p. 6), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Évariste Boshab and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Case C-261/19P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Cham Holding Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-413/16 Cham v Council
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, proof, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019187EN.01005001.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/50






Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Cham Holding Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-413/16 Cham v Council
(Case C-261/19P)
(2019/C 187/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Cham Holding Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Cham v Council, T-413/16;




And, giving judgment itself,






—


Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.
The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.
The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








C_2019114EN.01001001.xml










26.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/10






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
(2019/C 114/04)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority's ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA's Managements Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA's Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2));










ii.


made public on EFSA's website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published; and










iii.


made available through the Article 36 Search Tool to the organisations, providing contact details and the organisations' specific fields of competence.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, under the following links:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA's Management Board on [20.3.2019] — [https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/mb190320];










ii.


the updated list of competent organisations — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/art36listg.pdf; and










iii.


Article 36 Search Tool — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/art36/search




EFSA will keep this notification updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64).
Case C-257/19: Action brought on 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fact-finding mission, infringement of EU law, maritime safety, maritime transport, transport accident








C_2019206EN.01003101.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/31






Action brought on 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-257/19)
(2019/C 206/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. L. Kalėda, N. Yerrell, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by failing to provide for an investigative body which is independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/18/EC, Member States must ensure that safety investigations into very serious marine casualties are conducted under the responsibility of an impartial permanent investigative body. In order to carry out a safety investigation in an unbiased manner, Article 8(1) requires the investigative body to be independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to it.
The Commission considers that this requirement is not satisfied by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board set up by Ireland, on the grounds that two of its five members also have general regulatory and enforcement responsibilities in relation to the maritime safety of vessels flying the Irish flag and safety inspections in Irish waters.


(1)  OJ 2009, L 131, p. 114.
Case C-260/19 P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Bena Properties Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-412/16 Bena Properties v Council
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, proof, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019187EN.01004901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/49






Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Bena Properties Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-412/16 Bena Properties v Council
(Case C-260/19 P)
(2019/C 187/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Bena Properties Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Bena Properties v Council, T-412/16;




And, giving judgment itself,






—


Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.
The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.
The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2019 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (09547/2018 — C8-0021/2019 — 2018/0080(NLE))
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Croatia, Israel, Mediterranean region (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement








C_2021108EN.01017901.xml










26.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/179






P8_TA(2019)0223
Protocol to the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Agreement (accession of Croatia) ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2019 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (09547/2018 — C8-0021/2019 — 2018/0080(NLE))
(Consent)
(2021/C 108/17)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (09547/2018),










—


having regard to the draft Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (09548/2018),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0021/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0164/2019),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/507 of 26 March 2019 amending for the 297th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, terrorism








L_2019085EN.01001601.xml










27.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 85/16








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/507
of 26 March 2019
         
amending for the 297th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 22 March 2019, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 March 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading ‘Legal persons, groups and entities’:


            ‘Tariq Gidar Group (TGG) (alias: (a) Tehrik-e-Taliban-Tariq Gidar Group (b) TTP-Tariq Gidar Group (c) Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan Geedar Group (d) TTP Geedar Group (e) Tariq Geedar Group (f) Commander Tariq Afridi Group (g) Tariq Afridi Group (h) Tariq Gidar Afridi Group (i) The Asian Tigers. Address: (Afghanistan/Pakistan border region). Other information: Splinter group of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The group was formed in Darra Adam Khel, Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), Pakistan, in 2007. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 22.3.2019.’
Case C-255/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 26 March 2019 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v O A
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, foreign national, government violence, refugee, right of asylum, stateless person, third country








C_2019206EN.01003001.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/30






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 26 March 2019 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v O A
(Case C-255/19)
(2019/C 206/35)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: O A

Questions referred







1.


Is ‘protection of the country of nationality’ within the meaning of Article 11(l)(e) and Article 2(e) of the Qualification Directive (1) to be understood as state protection?










2.


In deciding the issue of whether there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the QD and the issue of whether there is protection available against such persecution, pursuant to Article 7 QD, is the ‘protection test’ or ‘protection inquiry’ to be applied to both issues and, if so, is it governed by the same criteria in each case?










3.


Leaving to one side the applicability of protection by non-State actors under Article 7(l)(b), and assuming the answer to question (1) above is yes, is the effectiveness or availability of protection to be assessed solely by reference to the protective acts/functions of state actors or can regard be had to the protective acts/functions performed by private (civil society) actors such as families and/or clans?










4.


Are (as is assumed in questions (2) and (3)) the criteria governing the ‘protection inquiry’ that has to be conducted when considering cessation in the context of Article 11(l)(e), the same as those to be applied in the Article 7 context?






(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).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019114EN.01000901.xml










26.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 March 2019
(2019/C 114/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1325 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4646 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85638 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4450 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1237 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6590 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,759 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,84 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2953 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7553 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3425 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5931 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5204 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8888 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6413 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5286 




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,07 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2997 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6015 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4170 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 058,85 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6081 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,411 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,7646 




THB


Thai baht


35,804 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4032 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6039 




INR


Indian rupee


78,0460 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-377/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Rules on languages — Selection procedure for contract staff — Call for expressions of interest — Drivers — Function group I — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German — Language of communication — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service)
Date: 2019-03-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), contract staff, drivers, language skills, linguistic discrimination, official language, recruitment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019187EN.01000201.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/2






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament
(Case C-377/16) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Rules on languages - Selection procedure for contract staff - Call for expressions of interest - Drivers - Function group I - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German - Language of communication - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)
(2019/C 187/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf, C. Burgos and M. Rantala, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016;










2.


Declares the database established pursuant to Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016 void;










3.


Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs






(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.