do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-396/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019280EN.01004501.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/45






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament
(Case T-396/19)
(2019/C 280/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Emma Allione (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-403/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019280EN.01004701.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/47






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Fantuzzi v Parliament
(Case T-403/19)
(2019/C 280/65)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giulio Fantuzzi (Correggio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9252 — CMOC/IXM) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: copper, economic concentration, lead, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining industry, molybdenum, precious metal, tungsten, zinc








C_2019229EN.01001801.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 229/18






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9252 — CMOC/IXM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 229/02)
On 28 June 2019, 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 32019M9252. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-411/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lombardo v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01003901.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/39






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lombardo v Parliament
(Case T-411/19)
(2019/C 295/50)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Raffaele Lombardo (Catania, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-406/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Cocilovo v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019288EN.01006001.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/60






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Cocilovo v Parliament
(Case T-406/19)
(2019/C 288/73)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Cocilovo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-741/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (Dumping — Imports of aspartame originating in China — Refusal to grant market economy treatment — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(7)(b) and (c), second indent, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Article 2(10) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Article 3(2) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Article 6(7) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Non-conformity of accounting documents — Non-compliance with international accounting standards — Recourse to EU industry data — Request for adjustment — Burden of proof — Right to a fair hearing — Principle of sound administration — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, food substitute, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence, standardised accounting system, sweetener








C_2019295EN.01001801.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/18






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission
(Case T-741/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in China - Refusal to grant market economy treatment - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), second indent, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 2(10) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 3(2) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 6(7) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Non-conformity of accounting documents - Non-compliance with international accounting standards - Recourse to EU industry data - Request for adjustment - Burden of proof - Right to a fair hearing - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations)
(2019/C 295/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hyet Sweet (Gravelines, France) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, F.-C. Laprévote and S. Branca, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2016 L 204, p. 92).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9400 — Apollo Management/Ares/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019217EN.01002101.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9400 — Apollo Management/Ares/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/10)

1.   
On 20 June 2019, 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:






—


Apollo Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, USA),










—


Ares Management Corporation (‘Ares’, USA).




Apollo and Ares acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created full-function joint venture (‘JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: investment in companies and debt issued by companies involved in various businesses throughout the world,
—   for Ares: investment in real estate and in companies and debt issued by companies involved in various businesses.
The JV will be active in the identification, acquisition and development of oil and natural gas properties in the United States of America.


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.9400 — Apollo Management/Ares/JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: 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.
Case T-414/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Frittelli v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004101.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/41






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Frittelli v Parliament
(Case T-414/19)
(2019/C 295/53)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Leda Frittelli (Frosinone, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-408/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Mezzaroma v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019288EN.01006201.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/62






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Mezzaroma v Parliament
(Case T-408/19)
(2019/C 288/75)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Roberto Mezzaroma (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1114 of 28 June 2019 amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Palestine, Palestine question, police cooperation








L_2019176EN.01000501.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 176/5








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/1114
of 28 June 2019
         
amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 3 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/354/CFSP (1), which continued the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) as from 1 July 2013.












(2)


On 29 June 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/942 (2), amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP and extending EUPOL COPPS from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2019.












(3)


Following the Strategic Review of EUPOL COPPS, EUPOL COPPS should be extended for a further period of 12 months, until 30 June 2020.












(4)


Decision 2013/354/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


EUPOL COPPS will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2013/354/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 12(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2020 shall be EUR 12 430 000.’;










(2)


in Article 15, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall expire on 30 June 2020.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 1 July 2019.




Done at Brussels, 28 June 2019.


For the Council


The President

G. CIAMBA
            





(1)  Council Decision 2013/354/CFSP of 3 July 2013 on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (OJ L 185, 4.7.2013, p. 12).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/942 of 29 June 2018 amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (OJ L 166, 3.7.2018, p. 17).
Case T-417/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Viola v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004302.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/43






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Viola v Parliament
(Case T-417/19)
(2019/C 295/56)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.