do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-605/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — EP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2018 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Consideration of comparative merits)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion








C_2020339EN.01001701.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/17






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — EP v Commission
(Case T-605/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Consideration of comparative merits)
(2020/C 339/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TEFU for annulment of the Commission decision of 13 November 2018 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 13 November 2018 not to promote EP to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-138/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — WH v EUIPO (Civil service — Public officials — 2018 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Action for annulment — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Articles 76 and 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Comparison of the merits)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, promotion, rights of the defence








C_2020339EN.01001402.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/14






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — WH v EUIPO
(Case T-138/19) (1)

(Civil service - Public officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Action for annulment - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Articles 76 and 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Comparison of the merits)
(2020/C 339/17)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 18 July 2018 by which EUIPO established a definitive list of the officials promoted in the context of the 2018 promotion exercise, in that that decision did not include the name of the applicant and, second, the decision of 18 December 2018 by which the competent appointing authority rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders WH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case T-448/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — BPCE and Others v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial risk, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020304EN.01001701.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/17






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — BPCE and Others v SRB
(Case T-448/20)
(2020/C 304/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 44 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Case T-424/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Portigon v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, company in difficulties, credit institution, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020279EN.01005502.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/55






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Portigon v SRB
(Case T-424/20)
(2020/C 279/70)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind und F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ESF/2020/24), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant;










—


stay the proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18, T-481/19 and T-339/20 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth plea in law put forward in Case T-339/20, Portigon v SRB.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 July 2020 2020/C 224/03
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020224EN.01000501.xml










8.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2020
(2020/C 224/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1290 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4522 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90150 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4555 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0643 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6428 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,681 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,62 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4683 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8393 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7508 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6261 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5317 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7499 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7260 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5751 




KRW


South Korean won


1 349,06 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2908 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9287 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5490 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 302,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8259 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,892 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,8888 




THB


Thai baht


35,262 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0701 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,4764 




INR


Indian rupee


84,4645 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-490/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Neda Industrial Group v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, nuclear non-proliferation, trade restriction








C_2020339EN.01001102.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/11






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Neda Industrial Group v Council
(Case T-490/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)
(2020/C 339/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Neda Industrial Group (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/833 of 4 June 2018 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2018 L 140, p. 87), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/827 of 4 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2018 L 140, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, second, of the letter of 6 June 2018 from the Council to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/833 of 4 June 2018 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/827 of 4 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as they concern Neda Industrial Group;










2.


Orders that the effects of Decision 2018/833 be maintained as regards Neda Industrial Group until the annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/827 takes effect;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case T-697/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, press, registered trade mark, therapeutics, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01002001.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/20






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben.)
(Case T-697/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 339/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 (Case R 779/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case T-186/19: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Zubedi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020339EN.01001501.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/15






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 –Zubedi v Council
(Case T-186/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment)
(2020/C 339/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Khaled Zubedi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Lester, QC, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Limonet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Khaled Zubedi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case T-447/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — BNP Paribas v SRB
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial risk, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020304EN.01001601.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/16






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — BNP Paribas v SRB
(Case T-447/20)
(2020/C 304/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Case T-661/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Securitec v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Illegality of a clause in the tender specifications — Equal treatment)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building services, equal treatment, maintenance, public building, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2020339EN.01001201.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/12






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Securitec v Commission
(Case T-661/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Illegality of a clause in the tender specifications - Equal treatment)
(2020/C 339/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Securitec (Livange, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Peuvrel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova, A Katsimerou and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant for lot No. 4 of the contract which was the subject of the restricted tender procedure HR/R1/PR/2017/059 and relating to the ‘maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’, and second, of the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2018 to refuse to provide the applicant with the clarifications that it had requested in the context of that procedure on 11 September 2018

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by Securitec for lot no. 4 of the contract that was the subject of restricted tender procedure HR/R1/PR/2017/059 relating to the ‘maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’ and the decision of the Commission of 17 September 2018 to refuse to provide Securitec with the clarifications that it had requested in the context of that procedure on 11 September 2018;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-203/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — VQ v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution for infringement of Article 77(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Rules for publication on the ECB’s website — Article 18(6) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 132(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014)
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet site, banking supervision, credit institution, disclosure of information, financial supervision, sanction (EU)








C_2020313EN.01002202.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/22






Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — VQ v ECB
(Case T-203/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution for infringement of Article 77(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Rules for publication on the ECB’s website - Article 18(6) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 132(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014)
(2020/C 313/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VQ (represented by: G. Cahill, Barrister)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, E. Yoo and M. Puidokas, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, A. Steiblytė, K. P. Wojcik and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-ESSAB-4, SNC 2016-0026 of the ECB, of 14 March 2018, adopted pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), to the extent that, first, it imposed on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 1 600 000 and, second, it decided to publish that penalty, without anonymising the name of the applicant, on the ECB’s website.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders VQ to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Case T-426/20: Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
Date: 2020-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, debt, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty, transparency in decision-making








C_2020279EN.01005601.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/56






Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission
(Case T-426/20)
(2020/C 279/71)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find and declare that the European Commission infringed Article 263 TFEU, in breach of the essential procedural requirements provided for in connection with the adoption of an act which, in the present case, has a direct and individual effect on Techniplan, in so far as it failed to take account of the letter by which the applicant objected to the pre-information and the applicant’s letter of formal notice under Article 265 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay an amount of compensation to the applicant for each day of delay in compliance and order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision and simultaneous debit note of 28 May 2020, issued against Techniplan s.r.l., demanding payment of EUR 107 505,66 in respect of the project FED/2011/261-985.
In support of the action, the applicant alleges failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and transparency and infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims in this regard:






—


that the final audit report drawn up by a private company showed a series of alleged discrepancies and irregularities in the execution of the works which were disputed in detail by the applicant company, highlighting a number of serious inaccuracies contained in that audit report;










—


that the applicant company submitted declarations by all the experts involved in the project, made before the Congolese judicial authorities, attesting their actual presence on the works sites;










—


that the experts were regularly recruited and used by Techniplan in the execution of the works provided for in the contract;










—


that the applicant company was unjustifiably excluded from the continuation of the contract;










—


that the payments were blocked without specific justification being provided.