do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-271/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the amounts advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2022002EN.01002702.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/27






Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu
(Case T-271/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2022/C 2/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 632456, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 189 128,26, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;










2.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-691/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: benchmarking, cartel, competition policy, ethanol, operation of the Institutions, rights of the defence








C_2021513EN.01003502.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/35






Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
(Case T-691/21)
(2021/C 513/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2021, requesting the applicants to reinitiate, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit that the Commission cannot make the opening of a new settlement procedure subject to the condition that they abandon the arguments made by them in the ordinary procedure following the failure of the first settlement procedure.
Case T-268/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the amounts advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2022002EN.01002601.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/26






Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu
(Case T-268/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2022/C 2/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 632462, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 101 370,94, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;










2.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-411/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — WM v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 — Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition — Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 1d(1), (4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable accommodation — Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability — Directive 2000/78/EC — Liability — Material and non-material harm)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), damages, discrimination based on disability, recruitment








C_2022002EN.01002901.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/29






Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — WM v Commission
(Case T-411/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 1d(1), (4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Liability - Material and non-material harm)
(2022/C 2/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WM (represented by: B. Entringer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Selection Board of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 of 27 September 2017 to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition as well as the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the damages he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/876 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards the leverage ratio, the net stable funding ratio, requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, counterparty credit risk, market risk, exposures to central counterparties, exposures to collective investment undertakings, large exposures, reporting and disclosure requirements, and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (Official Journal of the European Union L 65 of 25 February 2021)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU banking union, banking policy, credit institution, financial legislation, financial risk, financial supervision, investment company, private-sector liquidity, trade information








L_2021380EN.01002301.xml










27.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 380/23







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/876 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards the leverage ratio, the net stable funding ratio, requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, counterparty credit risk, market risk, exposures to central counterparties, exposures to collective investment undertakings, large exposures, reporting and disclosure requirements, and Regulation (EU) No 648/2012

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 65 of 25 February 2021
)


This corrigendum should be considered null and void.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10487 – CDPQ / INVESTCORP / ICR) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 501/02
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications policy, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2021501EN.01000801.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 501/8






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10487 – CDPQ / INVESTCORP / ICR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 501/02)
On 27 October 2021, 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 policy’ 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 32021M10487. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-698/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Paraskevaidis v Council and Commission
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, legality, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022002EN.01004701.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/47






Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Paraskevaidis v Council and Commission
(Case T-698/21)
(2022/C 2/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Georgios Paraskevaidis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas and D.-A. Pappa, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 4 February 2021 of the Commission and the instalment plan of 9 March 2021 and the decision of the Council of 19 July 2021, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Commission was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning; and










—


order the defendants to bear the costs.





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 that the contested decisions infringed the principle of legality. It is also alleged that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 (1) was not applicable for the period the applicant claimed the educational allowance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was illegally applied retroactively.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was adopted by the Heads of Administration beyond their remit.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion infringes Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.






(1)  Revised Conclusion No 237/05 on the education allowance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations approved by the Heads of Administration at their 284th meeting on 1 July 2020.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9987 – NVIDIA / ARM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 447/02
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, information technology industry, intellectual property, merger control, supplier








C_2021447EN.01000201.xml










4.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9987 – NVIDIA / ARM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 447/02)
On 27 October 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.9987 — NVIDIA / ARM, to the following 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’).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 October 2021 2021/C 434/02
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021434EN.01000201.xml










27.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 October 2021
(2021/C 434/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1618 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4392 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84178 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9848 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0684 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6828 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,700 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,29 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6009 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9468 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,9744 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5465 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4361 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0335 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6172 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5637 




KRW


South Korean won


1 354,11 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1309 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4124 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5225 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 408,24 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8174 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,947 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,6417 




THB


Thai baht


38,456 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4620 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4016 




INR


Indian rupee


87,0820 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-318/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the amounts advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2022002EN.01002801.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/28






Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu
(Case T-318/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2022/C 2/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 325940, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 359 913,75, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 31 January 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;










2.


Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-610/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Egis Bâtiments International and InCA v Parliament (Arbitration clause — Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Settlement agreement — Confidentiality clause — Principle of good faith — Contractual liability)
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration clause, building, confidentiality, improvement of housing, liability








C_2022002EN.01003501.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/35






Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Egis Bâtiments International and InCA v Parliament
(Case T-610/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Settlement agreement - Confidentiality clause - Principle of good faith - Contractual liability)
(2022/C 2/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Egis Bâtiments International (Montreuil, France) and InCA — Ingénieurs Conseils Associés Sàrl (Niederanven, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Rodesch and R. Jazbinsek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Caiola and L. Chrétien, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking (i) a declaration that the Parliament has infringed Article VIII of the settlement agreement of 9 April 2019 and has breached the duty of good faith in the performance of agreements enshrined in Article 1134 of the Luxembourg Civil Code and (ii) an order that that institution is to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 under that same agreement or, in the alternative, that it is to pay any other sum to be fixed ex aequo et bono.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Egis Bâtiments International and InCA — Ingénieurs Conseils Associés Sàrl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case T-708/21: Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, action for failure to act, control of State aid








C_2022084EN.01004002.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/40






Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission
(Case T-708/21)
(2022/C 84/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NO (represented by: E. Smartt, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland;










—


order the Commission to bear its costs, and;










—


order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
In accordance with Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Commission was obliged to define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland, on or before the expiry of a reasonable period since the applicant’s complaints. In connection with the failure to act within a reasonable period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 28 June 2021. In reply to the applicant’s call to act, the Commission failed to define its position within the prescribed period following the applicant’s call to act.
Considering that under these circumstances the Commission’s failure to define its position is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.
Case T-628/19: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Teva v Commission and EMA
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, equal treatment, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product, proof








C_2021513EN.01003603.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/36






Order of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Teva v Commission and EMA
(Case T-628/19) (1)

(2021/C 513/53)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.