do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-247/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — JP v Commission
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, indemnification, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy








C_2020222EN.01002701.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/27






Action brought on 4 May 2020 — JP v Commission
(Case T-247/20)
(2020/C 222/30)
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 C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2019/5394 to 5399; and










—


order the defendant to pay a symbolic Euro in order to compensate the moral damage suffered by the applicant and all the costs of the proceedings.





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 violation of Articles 4(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of privacy and of the integrity of the individual.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of the decision-making process.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to partial access and of the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration.
Case T-258/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — Klymenko v Council
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020222EN.01002801.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/28






Action brought on 4 May 2020 — Klymenko v Council
(Case T-258/20)
(2020/C 222/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the action brought by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovytch Klymenko;




In so far as concerns the applicant,






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested measures. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested measures with regard to the justification of those measures, respect for the rights of defence, effective judicial protection and the checks carried out on that basis.










2.


Second plea, alleging error of assessment of the facts of the case and misuse of power. The applicant claims that, taking into account the evidence submitted to it, the Council could only have found that there was not a sufficient legal basis for bringing criminal proceedings. The applicant also noted a number of infringements of his fundamental rights, from which the Council failed to draw any conclusions.










3.


Third plea, alleging infringement of fundamental rights, in so far as the contested measures were not adopted with due respect for the rights of defence, the right to effective judicial protection, or the right to equality of arms.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging absence of legal basis, in that Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide an admissible legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property.
Council Decision (EU) 2020/620 of 4 May 2020 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2020147EN.01000301.xml










8.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 147/3








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/620
of 4 May 2020
         
appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 10 December 2019, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2019/2157 (1), (EU) 2020/102 (2), (EU) 2020/144 (3) and (EU) 2020/511 (4) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(2)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Markus ACHLEITNER.












(3)


An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Viktor SIGL,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:






(a)


as a member:






—


Mr Thomas STELZER, Member of a Regional Executive holding an electoral mandate: State Government of Upper Austria;














(b)


as an alternate member:






—


Mr Markus ACHLEITNER, Member of a Regional Executive holding an electoral mandate: State Government of Upper Austria.











Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 4 May 2020.


For the Council


The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/102 of 20 January 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 20, 24.1.2020, p. 2).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/144 of 3 February 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 32, 4.2.2020, p. 16).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/511 of 26 March 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 113, 8.4.2020, p. 18).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 April 2020 2020/C 146/01
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020146EN.01000101.xml










4.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 April 2020
(2020/C 146/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0876 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,87 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4584 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86905 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6639 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0558 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,1840 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,097 




HUF


Hungarian forint


352,72 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5336 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8431 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5979 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6598 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5077 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4300 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7705 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5324 




KRW


South Korean won


1 313,09 




ZAR


South African rand


19,6572 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6665 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5790 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 178,05 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6767 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,772 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,8920 




THB


Thai baht


35,216 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8565 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,7953 




INR


Indian rupee


81,6108 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-146/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 May 2020 — Csordas and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee — Regularity — Supervisory obligation of the institution — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, invalidity of an election, trade union, trade union election, union representative








C_2020209EN.01002901.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/29






Order of the President of the General Court of 4 May 2020 — Csordas and Others v Commission
(Case T-146/20 R)
(Application for interim measures - Civil service - Elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee - Regularity - Supervisory obligation of the institution - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case)
(2020/C 209/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Annamaria Csordas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg), Jean Putz (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Miguel Vicente Nunez (Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, T. Lilamand and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking, principally, in the first place, suspension of the operation of (i) the memo of 26 November 2019 from the polling office declaring the results of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee, (ii) the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2019 concerning the calculation of the representativeness of representative trade unions and staff associations in the institution, (iii) the mandate of the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee resulting from the elections of November 2019, (iv) the appointment by the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee of its delegates to the Commission’s Central Staff Committee, and (v) any other decision concerning the allocation of additional resources to the Commission’s staff representatives, and, in the second place, an order requiring the Commission to retain the outgoing Staff Committee until the judgment is handed down in the main proceedings, while limiting its mandate to current business, and, in the alternative, an order requiring the Commission, first, to limit to current business the mandate of the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee resulting from the elections of November 2019 and, second, an order requiring that local section to appoint to the Commission’s Central Staff Committee the representatives proposed by Union Syndicale Luxembourg.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-265/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — JR v Commission
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, data protection, disclosure of information, personal data








C_2020247EN.01001901.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/19






Action brought on 4 May 2020 — JR v Commission
(Case T-265/20)
(2020/C 247/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Commission’s decisions of 28 February 2020 and 9 April 2020 refusing to disclose personal data concerning the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39) and, in particular, Article 17 thereof. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decisions infringe the fundamental right of access to personal data.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of sound administration and infringement of Regulation No 2018/1725, in particular of Articles 14(1) and (2) and 17(3) of that regulation.
Judgment of the Court of 4 May 2020 in Case E-6/19 Criminal proceedings against H and I (Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 13(1)(m) – Specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables – Empty journeys – Escort vehicles) 2020/C 283/04
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, administrative sanction, carriage of goods, driving period, money, rest period, road transport, vehicle








C_2020283EN.01000401.xml










27.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/4






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 4 May 2020
in Case E-6/19
Criminal proceedings against H and I


(Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 13(1)(m) – Specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables – Empty journeys – Escort vehicles)


(2020/C 283/04)
In Case E-6/19, Criminal proceedings against H and I – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 4 May 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.








a)


The exception for carriage by specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables under Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 must also apply to empty journeys, meaning those journeys undertaken before the loading and after the unloading of such vehicles.










b)


An escort vehicle is covered by the exception in Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 if the escort vehicle forms an integral and necessary part of the specialised vehicle’s transport of money and/or valuables.














2.


Penalties under Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 may neither be imposed, nor are necessary or proportionate, if the journeys at issue were undertaken by specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables on the territory of other EEA States where those EEA States have granted an exception under Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and any individual conditions to such exceptions are complied with, since no infringement has taken place.










3.


Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 does not require a driver of a specialised vehicle transporting money and/or valuables to record any time spent as described in Article 4(e) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and time spent driving as ‘other work’, where the EEA State has granted an exception under Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/610 of 4 May 2020 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, Palestine, Palestine question, aid to refugees, refugee, residence permit, right of asylum








L_2020142EN.01000501.xml










5.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 142/5








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/610
of 4 May 2020
         
concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 and Article 31(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 18 June 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/882 (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of the national permits of certain Palestinians for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Council Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 24 months.












(2)


On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 24 months,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 24 months, as from 31 January 2020.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 4 May 2020.


For the Council


The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/882 of 18 June 2018 concerning the temporary reception of certain Palestinians by Member States of the European Union and amending Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (OJ L 155, 19.6.2018, p. 8).

(2)  Council Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33).
Case T-255/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, decision-making, motor vehicle, provision of documents, right to information, technical committee (EU)








C_2020247EN.01001801.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/18






Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-255/20)
(2020/C 247/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Kenny, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 26 February 2020 in case GESTDEM No 2019/6819 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents in part;










—


rule on the costs and order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs as well as order any intervening parties to carry their own 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 that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exception (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) Regulation No 1049/2001) (1) and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU) because:






—


there is no decision-making process that would be seriously undermined by the partial disclosure of section 4 of the minutes of the 79th Meeting of the ‘Technical Committee — Motor Vehicles’, held in Brussels on 12 February 2019 (‘Document B’);










—


the Commission did not demonstrate that partial disclosure of section 4 of Document B would seriously undermine its decision-making process.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the overriding public interest test of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in relying on the Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees, which are inapplicable based on Article 277 TFEU.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case T-251/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — KG v Parliament
Date: 2020-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, pension scheme, retirement conditions, seniority








C_2020247EN.01001702.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/17






Action brought on 4 May 2020 — KG v Parliament
(Case T-251/20)
(2020/C 247/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Parliament’s decision dated 4 February 2020 rejecting her complaint of 29 November 2019:










—


annul, if need be, the Parliament’s decision dated 30 August 2019 rejecting her initial request of 4 April 2019;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for non-material damage estimated, ex æquo et bono, at the sum of EUR 5 000;










—


order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant all the legal costs incurred and the fees of the applicant’s retained legal counsel.





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 the misinterpretation of Article 20(3) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations and the breach of the principle of continuity of service.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and acquired rights.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to a good administration and of the duty of care.