do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-171/20: Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, allowances and expenses, assistant, claim, debt, principle of proportionality, proof, servant (EU)








C_2020191EN.01002701.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/27






Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
(Case T-171/20)
(2020/C 191/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J. Teheux and J. Rikkers, 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 17 December 2019;










—


annul debit note No 7000000071 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 27 241;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019 to proceed with the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of parliamentary assistance and the debit note relating to those sums, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary.










3.


Third 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 are incorrect.










4.


Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant worked for the applicant only for a few days.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 17 March 2020 2020/C 89/01
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020089EN.01000101.xml










18.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 March 2020
(2020/C 89/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0982 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4732 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90823 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9593 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0561 




ISK


Iceland króna


154,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,5063 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,985 




HUF


Hungarian forint


347,04 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4628 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8418 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,1286 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,8287 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5512 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5274 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8420 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5691 




KRW


South Korean won


1 365,21 




ZAR


South African rand


18,2288 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7095 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5823 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 681,66 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7777 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,563 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,3460 




THB


Thai baht


35,461 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5280 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,0491 




INR


Indian rupee


81,5670 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9705 — EXOR/GEDI) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 89/02
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, broadcasting, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, publishing, television








C_2020089EN.01000201.xml










18.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/2






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9705 — EXOR/GEDI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 89/02)

1.   
On 24 February 2020, 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:






—


EXOR N.V., (‘EXOR’, the Netherlands),










—


GEDI Gruppo Editoriale S.p.A (‘GEDI’, Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for EXOR: a holding company with investments in various sectors (car manufacturing, production of commercial vehicles used for agriculture, reinsurance and professional football),










—


for GEDI: publishing, digital communication, advertisement, radio and TV.






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 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:
Case M.9705— EXOR/GEDI
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’).
Case T-172/20: Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, allowances and expenses, assistant, claim, debt, principle of proportionality, proof, servant (EU)








C_2020191EN.01002801.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/28






Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
(Case T-172/20)
(2020/C 191/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J. Teheux and J. Rikkers, 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 17 December 2019;










—


annul debit note No 7000000019 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 60 499,38;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019 to proceed with the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of parliamentary assistance and the debit note relating to those sums, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary.










3.


Third 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 are incorrect.










4.


Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant has never worked for the applicant.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9789 – CMA CGM/CMP/Terminal Link) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 104/01
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage for hire or reward, container, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control








C_2020104EN.01000101.xml










31.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9789 – CMA CGM/CMP/Terminal Link)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 104/01)
On 18 March 2020, 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 32020M9789. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-170/20: Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, allowances and expenses, assistant, claim, debt, principle of proportionality, proof, servant (EU)








C_2020191EN.01002601.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/26






Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
(Case T-170/20)
(2020/C 191/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J. Teheux and J. Rikkers, 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 17 December 2019;










—


annul the debit note No 7000000069 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 61 423,40;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019 to proceed with the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of parliamentary assistance and the debit note relating to those sums, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary.










3.


Third 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 are incorrect.










4.


Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant has never worked for the applicant.
Case T-179/20: Action brought on 18 March 2020 — JP v Commission
Date: 2020-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, professional qualifications








C_2020209EN.01002902.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/29






Action brought on 18 March 2020 — JP v Commission
(Case T-179/20)
(2020/C 209/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JP (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 July 2019 not placing the applicant on the reserve list of successful candidates of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD7), along with the decision of 10 December 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for review;










—


order the defendant to compensate the damages occurred; and,










—


order that defendant to pay all the costs.





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 infringement of the principle according to which the members of the Selection Board shall have the necessary abilities to make an objective assessment of the performance and professional qualifications of the applicant during the field-related interview, breach of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle according to which the composition of the selection board must be sufficiently stable.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.