do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-881/19: Action brought on 31 December 2019 — GABO:mi v Commission
Date: 2019-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, debt, eligibility criteria, financial solvency, provision of services, reimbursement of aid, research project








C_2020087EN.01002101.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/21






Action brought on 31 December 2019 — GABO:mi v Commission
(Case T-881/19)
(2020/C 87/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay EUR 1 680 681,82 plus interest of EUR 76 552,60 to the applicant;










—


order the defendant to bear all costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that eligible costs must be reimbursed by the defendant.






—


The applicant conducted its services under FP6 and FP7 grant agreements. Be-tween 1 August 2015 and 30 April 2016, the applicant was working in a total of 37 research projects. From 1 May 2016 until 30 June 2016, the applicant conducted its services in a total of 38 research projects. All costs incurred during these timespans fulfil the eligibility criteria stipulated in the grant agreements entered into by the parties (Article II.14.1). These costs have not yet been reimbursed by the defendant. The defendant is obliged to reimburse these costs according to the grant agreements.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the set-offs during the period from August 2015 to April 2016 are ineffective.






—


The set-offs during the period from August 2015 to April 2016 are ineffective pursuant to German insolvency law. Regarding a partial amount of EUR 274 248,27, the ineffectiveness of the set-offs against the claims of the applicant follows from Section 95 (1) 3 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO). As far as the set-offs concern the remaining amount of EUR 1 144 394,33 pursuant to the judgment of 25 September 2018 in GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG v Commission (Case T-10/16, EU:T:2018:600), set-off is deemed ineffective pursuant to section 96 (1) 3 InsO, in conjunction with section 133 (1) InsO (former version).














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the set-offs during the preliminary insolvency proceedings (May to June 2016) are ineffective






—


The set-offs of the defendant during the period from May to June 2016 are ineffective pursuant to section 96 (1) 3 InsO, in conjunction with section 130 (1) No. 2 InsO. Section 96 (1) 3 InsO provides for insolvency-related ineffectiveness of such set-offs that were declared before opening of insolvency proceedings or thereafter where the right of set-off was obtained in a voidable manner.
Case C-949/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 31 December 2019 — M.A. v Konsul Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w N.
Date: 2019-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, foreign national, freedom of movement, right to justice








C_2020191EN.01000202.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 31 December 2019 — M.A. v Konsul Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w N.
(Case C-949/19)
(2020/C 191/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M.A.

Defendant: Konsul Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w N.

Question referred

Must Article 21(2a) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (1) in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who has been refused a long-stay visa and who cannot exercise the right to move freely within the territories of the other Member States under Article 21(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must have the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19.
Case C-942/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (Spain) lodged on 31 December 2019 — Servicio Aragonés de la Salud v LB
Date: 2019-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, full-time employment, health care profession, labour law, paid leave, public sector, right to health, temporary employment, work contract








C_2020103EN.01001301.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (Spain) lodged on 31 December 2019 — Servicio Aragonés de la Salud v LB
(Case C-942/19)
(2020/C 103/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Servicio Aragonés de la Salud

Respondent: LB

Questions referred







1.


Must clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right, derived from obtaining a post in the public sector, to the conferral of a particular administrative status in relation to the post — also in the public sector — which was held up until then is a condition of employment in respect of which temporary workers and permanent workers may not be treated differently?










2.


Must clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, be interpreted as meaning that justification on objective grounds for the different treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers includes the aim of preventing serious failings and harm as regards the instability of workforces in a field as sensitive as the provision of healthcare, which falls under the constitutional right to the protection of health, such that it can serve as the basis for refusal to grant a particular type of leave of absence to those who obtain a temporary post but not to those who obtain a permanent post?










3.


Does clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, preclude a rule such as that laid down in Article 15 of [Royal Decree 365/1995], which excludes posts held as a temporary civil servant or as a temporary staff member from being part of the posts which give entitlement to the status of on leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector, when that status must be granted to those who take up a permanent post in the public sector and that status is more advantageous for a public servant than the other alternative administrative statuses which that public servant would have to request in order to be able to take up a new post to which he or she has been nominated?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).