do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-181/19: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Purely confirmatory act — Time limit for complaints — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, competition (EU), full-time employment, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2020019EN.01005101.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/51






Order of the General Court of 18 November 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
(Case T-181/19) (1)

(Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory act - Time limit for complaints - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 19/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukosiütè, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests to remove the termination clause in Article 5 of her contract, reclassify her contract as a contract of indefinite duration, withdraw, if necessary, the decision of 14 December 2017 and grant a second contract extension beyond 30 September 2018 or, at least, include her in the procedure for a second renewal of temporary agent contracts in accordance with the guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts of 28 January 2016 and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



The European Union Intellectual Property Office shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sigrid Dickmanns.







(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Air quality and health : cleaner air for all.
Date: 2019-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU action, air quality, climate change, cost of pollution, economic consequence, health risk, pollution control, public health, quality of the environment, reduction of gas emissions, urban area, urban problem

CLEAN AIR 
AND HEALTH
Cleaner air for all

Improving Europe’s air quality helps us 
to live longer, enjoy a better quality of 
life, avoid disease, save medical costs, 
and increase productivity.

Air pollutant emissions went down during the last couple of decades in Europe, 
often dramatically, yet many people in cities still breathe polluted air. More needs to be 
done. Applying EU rules fully could cut the health impacts of air pollution in half by 2030 
compared to the situation in 2005, saving thousands of lives and money too!

Health benefits of cleaner air

Reducing particulate matter, 
nitrogen dioxide and ozone 
would have the biggest 
health benefits

Breathing problems and 
heart disease are less common 
when there are fewer small 
particles in the air

Cleaner transport reduces car 
exhaust fumes, which irritate 
the eyes, nose and throat and 
can cause lung cancer

Less ozone pollution is better 
for our lungs and heart

Less nitrogen dioxide in the air 
we breathe benefits our liver, 
spleen and red blood cells

Renewable energy and city or 
district heating significantly 
reduce local air pollution

Environment

Did you know?

17 % of lung cancer
deaths are attributable to 
air pollution

Air pollution costs €4 billion 
in healthcare and €16
billion in lost workdays each year

400 000 premature 
deaths in the EU every
year are linked to air pollution

About 130 cities across
Europe do not meet EU air 
quality standards

72 % of Europeans want
public action to
improve air quality

#CleanAirEU
EU funding is available for implementing air quality policy. 
Details at: http://bit.ly/2xA9sCY

Sources: European Environment Agency (2019) 
and World Health Organization (2017)

Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 
2019 © European Union, 2019
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  

Print

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-11040-8

ISBN 978-92-76-11039-2

doi:10.2779/636188

KH-02-19-737-EN-C

doi:10.2779/457902

KH-02-19-737-EN-N
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Research Council Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 1
Date: 2019-11-18
Institutions: European Commission, European Research Council Executive Agency
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts




C_2019391EN.01002501.xml










18.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/25






Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Research Council Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 1 (1)

(2019/C 391/06)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2019


Amending budget No 1


New amount





9




EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY





9 2


EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY


51 327 500 


190 340 


51 517 840 




9 9


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 9 — Total




51 327 500 




190 340 




51 517 840 





 



GRAND TOTAL




51 327 500 




190 340 




51 517 840 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2019


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1




STAFF EXPENDITURE





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


38 500 000 


–37 000 


38 463 000 




1 2


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE


1 948 550 


351 300 


2 299 850 




 



Title 1 — Total




40 448 550 




314 300 




40 762 850 






2




INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


5 808 270 


45 970 


5 854 240 




2 2


INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICT)


2 101 680 


– 251 680 


1 850 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE


265 800 


73 550 


339 350 




 



Title 2 — Total




8 175 750 




– 132 160 




8 043 590 






3




PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE


2 703 200 


8 200 


2 711 400 




 



Title 3 — Total




2 703 200 




8 200 




2 711 400 





 



GRAND TOTAL




51 327 500 




190 340 




51 517 840 






Establishment plan










Function group and grade


2019


2018




Permanent posts


Temporary posts


Permanent posts


Temporary posts






AD 16


—


—


—


—




AD 15


—


—


—


_




AD 14


—


10 


—


5 




AD 13


—


5 


—


9 




AD 12


—


3 


—


3 




AD 11


—


1 


—


1 




AD 10


—


13 


—


19 




AD 9


—


58 


—


40 




AD 8


—


9 


—


16 




AD 7


—


17 


—


11 




AD 6


—


10 


—


15 




AD 5


—


1 


—


1 




Total Function Group AD


—


127 


—


120 






AST 11


—


—


—


—




AST 10


—


—


—


—




AST 9


—


—


—


—




AST 8


—


—


—


—




AST 7


—


—


—


—




AST 6


—


—


—


—




AST 5


—


—


—


—




AST 4


—


—


—


—




AST 3


—


—


—


—




AST 2


—


—


—


—




AST 1


—


—


—


—




Total Function Group AST


—


—


—


—







Total staff




—




127 




—




120 







(1)  Detailed budget available on the ERCEA website: http://erc.europa.eu/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9579 — ENI/HitecVision/Norwegian Upstream Assets of ExxonMobil) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 395/01
Date: 2019-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, gas industry, investment company, merger control, oil industry








C_2019395EN.01000101.xml










22.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9579 — ENI/HitecVision/Norwegian Upstream Assets of ExxonMobil)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 395/01)
On 18 November 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 32019M9579. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-798/19: Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament
Date: 2019-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, debt, pay, principle of proportionality, proof, servant (EU)








C_2020045EN.01007701.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/77






Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament
(Case T-798/19)
(2020/C 45/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, and M. Ganilsy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 September 2019;










—


annul debit note No 2019-1599 ordering the recovery of EUR 29 806;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament were incorrect.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a reversal of burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is not for him to adduce evidence as regards the work of his parliamentary assistant; rather, it is for the Parliament to prove the contrary.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant implies that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.