do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-504/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A. v VR
Date: 2019-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: credit institution, industrial reorganisation, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, right to justice, rule of law








C_2019363EN.01000501.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2019 — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A. v VR
(Case C-504/19)
(2019/C 363/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco, S.A.

Defendant: VR

Question referred

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (1) under which, in legal proceedings pending in other Member States, the courts must, without any further formalities, recognise the effects of a Decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State that is intended retrospectively to change the legal framework that existed at the time the proceedings were commenced and that renders ineffective any judgments that do not accord with the provisions of the new decision, compatible with the fundamental right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the principle of the rule of law in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and the general principle of legal certainty?


(1)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).
Case T-424/19: Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Sbarbati v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-02
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.01004901.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/49






Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Sbarbati v Parliament
(Case T-424/19)
(2019/C 295/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luciana Sbarbati (Chiaravalle, 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-428/19: Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Rigo v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-02
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.01005201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/52






Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Rigo v Parliament
(Case T-428/19)
(2019/C 295/67)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Rigo (Noale, 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-422/19: Action brought on 2 July 2019 — De Luca v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-02
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.01004701.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/47






Action brought on 2 July 2019 — De Luca v Parliament
(Case T-422/19)
(2019/C 295/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Stefano De Luca (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and N. De Luca, 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.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 July 2019 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2019221EN.01000101.xml










2.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/1






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 July 2019
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 July 2019
(2019/C 221/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1349 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4647 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89718 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5450 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1141 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6848 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,478 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2427 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7327 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4272 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6226 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4866 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8639 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6941 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5359 




KRW


South Korean won


1 318,27 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0216 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7654 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3970 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 016,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6904 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,953 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,4725 




THB


Thai baht


34,771 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3435 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7024 




INR


Indian rupee


78,2360 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-432/19: Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Gawronski v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-02
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.01005501.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/55






Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Gawronski v Parliament
(Case T-432/19)
(2019/C 295/71)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Jas Gawronski (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-423/19: Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Martelli v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-02
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.01004801.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/48






Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Martelli v Parliament
(Case T-423/19)
(2019/C 295/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Claudio Martelli (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-406/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Mahmoudian v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, admission of aliens, damages, economic sanctions, freedom of movement, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2019328EN.01003601.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/36






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Mahmoudian v Council
(Case T-406/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage)
(2019/C 328/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannikis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Aresu and D. Gauci, then by A. Aresu and R. Tricot acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010, L 281, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian EUR 71 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian, the Council and the Commission each to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case C-506/19 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2019 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2019 in Case T-434/15: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines e.a. v Council
Date: 2019-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, discretionary power, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, proof








C_2019319EN.01002501.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/25






Appeal brought on 2 July 2019 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2019 in Case T-434/15: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines e.a. v Council
(Case C-506/19 P)
(2019/C 319/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court;










—


hold that the Council committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals by way of the Designation of the Appellants;










—


remit the case to the General Court to determine the contingent application for measures of inquiry contained in the application, and then (subsequently) to determine the issues of causation and quantum; and










—


order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court so far.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed five errors of law on the basis of which the judgment should be set aside:






1.


error in the application of the conclusion that the Council had no discretion;










2.


error in the application of the reasoning in the IRISL Annulment Judgment [2013] to the test for sufficiently serious breach;










3.


no basis in law for the ‘no evidence’/‘inadequate evidence’ distinction, which was inapplicable in any event;










4.


error in law in purporting to rely on evidence not before the Court; and










5.


error in law in applying HTTS as an issue estoppel/res judicata.
Case T-405/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Fulmen v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds — Compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the inclusion and retention of its name on lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








C_2019288EN.01004301.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/43






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Fulmen v Council
(Case T-405/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds - Compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the inclusion and retention of its name on lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage)
(2019/C 288/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fulmen (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Aresu and D. Gauci, and subsequently by A. Aresu and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p.39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281 p 81, ), and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p.1), by which the name of the applicant was included and retained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Fulmen compensation of EUR 50 000 for the non-material damage suffered;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders Fulmen, the Council and the Commission to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.