do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-583/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Bakhanovich v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01003101.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/31






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Bakhanovich v Council
(Case T-583/21)
(2022/C 11/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.


(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Case T-582/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Rubnikovich v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01003002.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/30






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Rubnikovich v Council
(Case T-582/21)
(2022/C 11/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Siarhei Rubnikovich (Tarasovo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.


(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.


(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Case T-580/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Haidukevich v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Member of Parliament, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01002902.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/29






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Haidukevich v Council
(Case T-580/21)
(2022/C 11/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aleh Haidukevich (Semkino, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.


(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 448/04
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Andalusia, Spain, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2021448EN.01000501.xml










5.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 448/5






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 448/04)






Member State


Spain




Route concerned


Almeria – Sevilla




Reopening date of the PSO routes to community air carriers


1 August 2022




Address where the text and any other information or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained.







Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda




Urbana




Dirección General de Aviación Civil




Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo




Paseo de la Castellana 67




28071 Madrid




ESPAÑA




Tel. +34 915977505
Fax +34 915978643
Email: osp.dgac@mitma.es




The routes subject to public service obligations may be operated on the basis of free competition access as from 1 August 2022. In the event that no air carrier submits a program of services compliant with the public service obligations imposed, access will be restricted to a single air carrier through the corresponding public tender procedure, in accordance with Article 16 (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008.
Case C-663/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 November 2021 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, foreign national, illegal migration, refugee, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum








C_2022073EN.01001001.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 November 2021 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
(Case C-663/21)
(2022/C 73/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Interested party: AA

Questions referred







1.


In the assessment as to whether the asylum status previously granted to a refugee by the competent authority can be revoked on the ground set out in Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, (1) must the competent authority carry out a weighing up of interests in such a way that revocation requires that the public interests in forced return must outweigh the refugee’s interests in the continuation of the protection afforded by the State of refuge, whereby the reprehensibility of a crime and the potential danger to society must be weighed against the foreign national’s interests in protection — including with regard to the extent and nature of the measures with which he or she is threatened?










2.


Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115/EC, (2) in particular Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 thereof, preclude a situation under national law in which a return decision is to be adopted in respect of a third-country national whose previous right of residence as a refugee is withdrawn due to the revocation of asylum status, even if it is already declared at the time of adoption of the return decision that his or her removal is not permissible for an indefinite period of time on account of the principle of non-refoulement, and this is also declared capable of having legal force?






(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Case T-713/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung v EMA
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United States, access to EU information, coronavirus disease, epidemic, market approval, personal data, vaccine








C_2022073EN.01004702.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/47






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung v EMA
(Case T-713/21)
(2022/C 73/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung (Elsbethen, Austria) (represented by: A. Steindl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the EMA’s decision of 21 September 2021 (EMA/468888/2021) rejecting the applicant’s appeal of 13 August 2021 against the EMA’s decision of 28 July 2021 (EMA/421922/2021);










—


grant access to the ‘c4591001-interim-ado-report-body’ study on the basis of which the EMA’s Assessment Report EMA/CHMP/282047/2021 Rev. 1 of 22 July 2021 or Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 4034 (final) of 31 May 2021 were adopted.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law concerning the classification of anonymised data records of study C4591001 in respect of US participants in the study as personal data under Regulation 2018/7125. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law by the EMA in finding that study C4591001 has not been finalised as regards a change in the paediatric indication and is consistent with ‘EMA Policy(0070) on Clinical Data Publication’ (EMA/144064/2019).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law in the finding that the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2) (‘protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property’) is applicable.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law in the finding that there is no overriding public interest pursuant to the last sentence of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 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 Union 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).

(2)  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-579/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Gusachenka v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01002901.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/29






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Gusachenka v Council
(Case T-579/21)
(2022/C 11/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Siarhei Gusachenka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.


(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.


(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Case C-666/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, housing, large vehicle, road transport, vehicle registration








C_2022024EN.01002202.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten
(Case C-666/21)
(2022/C 24/29)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants and respondents: AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

Questions referred







1.


Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use?










2.


In such circumstances, is the vehicle’s cargo capacity or how the vehicle is registered in the national road traffic register of relevance?






(1)  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 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).
Case T-728/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — LW v Commission
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, conflict of interest, indemnification, reassignment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022011EN.01003801.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/38






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — LW v Commission
(Case T-728/21)
(2022/C 11/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LW (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision to move the applicant inside the same Unit to a different post;










—


together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s contested decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the reassignment decision;










—


order the compensation of the non-material damages of the applicant and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision affected the applicant’s legal interests.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision has not been taken by the competent appointing authority.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision have been taken in violation of Article 7(1) of the Staff regulations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision infringe the principle of duty of care.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision violated the duty to state reasons.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that a conflict of interest issue vitiates the reassignment decision and the contested decision.
Case T-715/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Castile-La Mancha, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, peripheral region, proof, reimbursement of aid, telecommunications, television








C_2022037EN.01004201.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/42






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
(Case T-715/21)
(2022/C 37/56)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Cellnex Telecom, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and N. Bayón Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in their application;










—


annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 2021 on the State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); (1)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU and a breach of the procedural rights that interested parties derive from EU law.






—


In that regard, the applicants submit that that infringement occurred because the decision at issue was adopted without a new opening decision being adopted, or the opening decision which preceded the 2013 decision being amended, or the Commission having first informed the applicants of its preliminary selectivity analysis.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the notion of selectivity, infringement of the burden of proof and failure to state reasons.






—


In that regard, the applicants submit that the Commission errs in its ‘primary’ selectivity analysis by stating that the system of reference is ‘the normal market conditions under which companies should operate’, including all undertakings and sectors of the economy. The Commission errs in its ‘subsidiary’ selectivity analysis by stating that terrestrial and satellite technologies are in comparable situations when delivering digital television signal to what the decision at issue refers to as Area II.










(1)  OJ 2021 L 417, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 November 2021 2021/C 448/03
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021448EN.01000401.xml










5.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 448/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 November 2021
(2021/C 448/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1569 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85350 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9060 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0554 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8590 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,469 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,86 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6067 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9494 




TRY


Turkish lira


11,2503 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5602 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4365 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0059 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6235 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5627 




KRW


South Korean won


1 369,33 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5896 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3983 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5240 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 618,72 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8052 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,579 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,7443 




THB


Thai baht


38,542 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4833 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,8191 




INR


Indian rupee


86,0955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-581/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Skryba v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01003001.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/30






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Skryba v Council
(Case T-581/21)
(2022/C 11/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.


(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Case T-557/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Omelyanyuk v Council
Date: 2021-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Member of Parliament, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2022011EN.01002801.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/28






Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Omelyanyuk v Council
(Case T-557/21)
(2022/C 11/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aleksandr Omelyanyuk (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.