do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
EUROPHYT 2018 : EU notification system for plant health interceptions.
Date: 2019-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Subjects: EU Member State, Switzerland, activity report, agricultural production, information system, plant health control, quality control of agricultural products, statistics

European
Commission

EUROPHYT 2018

EU Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions

8 720
notifications

+13% from 2017

1 712
Harmful 
organisms

15.9%

Found in...

4 579
Absent, or non-
compliant certificates 

2 279
Non-compliant Wood 
Packaging Material

280
Banned products

11.3%76.3%

31.8%

22.7%

FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES 

1 069

WOOD PACKAGING 
MATERIAL
206

CUT 
FLOWERS
300

PLANTS
90

Main 
pests...

FRUIT
FLIES

291

WHITE 
FLIES

215

THRIPS

154

Health and
Food Safety

FALSE
 CODLING 
MOTH

105

CITRUS 
BLACK 
SPOT

53

LEAFMINERS

49

2018 Specific Issues

FALL ARMYWORM
PEPPERS, EGGPLANT

FRUIT FLIES
MANGOES

+54.5%
from 2017

34 notifications

-9.9%
from 2017

291 notifications

CITRUS BLACK SPOT
CITRUS

+47.2%
from 2017

53 notifications

WOOD PACKAGING MATERIAL

NON ISPM 15 COMPLIANT 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 559

PRESENCE OF HARMFUL ORGANISMS
BELARUS: 73

DECREASED INTERCEPTIONS 
WITH HARMFUL ORGANISMS 
(FRUIT AND VEGETABLES)

INCREASED INTERCEPTIONS 
WITH HARMFUL ORGANISMS 
(FRUIT AND VEGETABLES)

NIGERIA
UGANDA
LAOS
VIETNAM

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
SURINAME
BRAZIL
GHANA

Source Europhyt data

Annual report

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/annual_reports_en

Alert list

 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/non_eu_trade/alert_list_en

ISBN 978-92-76-18833-9     ISSN 2600-0997     doi 10.2875/379696     EW-BR-18-001-EN-N
Case T-872/19: Action brought on 22 December 2019 — IM v EIB
Date: 2019-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: age discrimination, appointment of staff, damages, indemnification, managing director, personal data, recruitment








C_2020068EN.01004801.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/48






Action brought on 22 December 2019 — IM v EIB
(Case T-872/19)
(2020/C 68/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


admit this action as procedurally valid;










—


on the merits see the action as justified;










—


declare the decision of 3 October 2019, repeated and reiterated on 9 October 2019, unlawful and incorrect;










—


consequently, order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned heads of claim the sum of EUR 143 915,70 in respect of non-material damage and the sum of EUR 1 726 988,40 in respect of material damage or any other amount, even greater, to be assessed ex aequo et bono by the Court or by experts, together with statutory interest from the date of the present application until payment is made in full;










—


order the opposing party to pay the costs and expenses incurred.





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 an infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund which provides that ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and its addendum on the ground that it is apparent from those documents and from the extension of the applicant’s term of office beyond 15 March 2017 that there was an agreement allowing him to work until the age of 67 and even thereafter.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging direct discrimination on account of the applicant’s age. The applicant submits that by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age the recruitment panel infringed the principle of non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement relating to the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that by relying on the content of the letter of appointment for the reasoning of its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it was aware of a document that it was not supposed to have in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant.