do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-409/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Meo 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.01006202.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/62






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Meo v Parliament
(Case T-409/19)
(2019/C 288/76)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Maria Di Meo (Cellole, 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-398/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti 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.01004601.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/46






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Paciotti v Parliament
(Case T-398/19)
(2019/C 280/64)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Elena Ornella Paciotti (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-404/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra 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.01004702.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/47






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lavarra v Parliament
(Case T-404/19)
(2019/C 280/66)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vincenzo Lavarra (Bari, 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-377/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by EMA containing information submitted by the applicants in the context of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva — Decision to grant a third party access to a document — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, market approval, medicinal product








C_2019288EN.01005101.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/51






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA
(Case T-377/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by EMA containing information submitted by the applicants in the context of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva - Decision to grant a third party access to a document - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings)
(2019/C 288/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Intercept Pharma Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (New York, New York, United States), (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos and H. Kerr-Peterson, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: initially by S. Marino, S. Drosos, A. Rusanov and T. Jabłoński, and subsequently by S. Marino, S. Drosos, T. Jabłoński, R. Pita and G. Gavriilidou, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EMA decision ASK-40399 of 15 May 2018, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Case T-395/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli 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.01004401.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/44






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament
(Case T-395/19)
(2019/C 280/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo Tognoli (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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9412 — EQT Fund Management/Nestlé Skin Health) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2019217EN.01002201.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/22






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9412 — EQT Fund Management/Nestlé Skin Health)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/11)

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:






—


EQT VIII SCSp (‘EQT’ Luxembourg), controlled by the EQT group of private equity funds,










—


Nestlé Skin Health S.A. (‘NSH’ Switzerland),




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


EQT is a financial investor that seeks to make investments primarily in Northern Europe,










—


NSH offers a range of medical and consumer skin health solutions through three business units: Aesthetics, Prescription, and Consumer.






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.9412 — EQT Fund Management/Nestlé Skin Health
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.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1115 of 28 June 2019 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Palestine, Palestine question, border control, common security and defence policy, cross-border cooperation, the EU's international role








L_2019176EN.01000601.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 176/6








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/1115
of 28 June 2019
         
amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)


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 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP (1) establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah).












(2)


On 29 June 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/943 (2) amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP and extending it until 30 June 2019.












(3)


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












(4)


Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


EU BAM Rafah 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
Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 13(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 shall be EUR 2 150 000.’;










(2)


in Article 16, the second 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 Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/943 of 29 June 2018 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 166, 3.7.2018, p. 19).
Case T-416/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Filippi 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.01004301.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/43






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Filippi v Parliament
(Case T-416/19)
(2019/C 295/55)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Livio Filippi (Carpi, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019217EN.01000401.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 June 2019
(2019/C 217/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1370 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4641 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89428 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5488 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1121 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6843 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,434 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,64 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2515 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7223 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5573 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6251 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4928 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8836 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6996 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5393 




KRW


South Korean won


1 313,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0893 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8199 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3955 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 077,18 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7117 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,209 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,6096 




THB


Thai baht


35,003 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3868 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7397 




INR


Indian rupee


78,5675 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-407/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Speroni 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.01006101.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/61






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Speroni v Parliament
(Case T-407/19)
(2019/C 288/74)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Francesco Enrico Speroni (Busto Arsizio, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9366 — BPCE/Auchan/Oney Bank) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, credit institution, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, investment bank, merger control, retail trade








C_2019217EN.01002001.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9366 — BPCE/Auchan/Oney Bank)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/09)

1.   
On 21 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:






—


BPCE SA (‘BPCE’, France),










—


Auchan Holding SA (‘Auchan’, France), a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company Suraumarché SAS (France); and










—


Oney Bank SA (‘Oney Bank’, France), currently owned by Auchan.




BPCE and Auchan acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Oney Bank.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BPCE is a French banking group operating in the following sectors: (i) retail banking and financial services; (ii) corporate and investment banking; and (iii) asset management and insurance,










—


Auchan is a large retailer in France and elsewhere in Europe,










—


Oney Bank is a credit institution specialising in consumer credit, the issuing of payment cards and insurance products.






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.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit to it their possible observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9366 — BPCE/Auchan/Oney Bank
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




BELGIUM







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-394/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino 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.01004302.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/43






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Zecchino v Parliament
(Case T-394/19)
(2019/C 280/60)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Ortensio Zecchino (Ariano Irpino, 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.