do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0406/2021 — 2021/0803(NLE))
Date: 2022-01-20
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2022336EN.01003801.xml










2.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/38






P9_TA(2022)0003
Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Marek Opiola
European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0406/2021 — 2021/0803(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2022/C 336/07)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0406/2021),










—


having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0004/2022),










A.


whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors;










B.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










C.


whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;












1.


Delivers an unfavourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors and asks the Council to withdraw its nomination and submit a new one to Parliament;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Case C-51/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Failure to comply with the obligation to recover unlawful and incompatible aid — Financial penalties — Proportionality and dissuasiveness — Periodic penalty payment — Lump sum — Ability to pay — Weighting of the Member State’s voting rights in the European Parliament)
Date: 2022-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, capital increase, control of State aid, credit guarantee, judgment of the Court (EU), mining extraction, periodic penalty payment, reimbursement of aid, sanction (EU)








C_2022119EN.01000502.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-51/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Failure to comply with the obligation to recover unlawful and incompatible aid - Financial penalties - Proportionality and dissuasiveness - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - Weighting of the Member State’s voting rights in the European Parliament)
(2022/C 119/07)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 4 368 000 per six-month period from the date of delivery of the present judgment up to the date of full compliance with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845);










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 500 000;










4.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2021 2022/C 29/06
Date: 2022-01-20
Institutions: Standing Committee of the EFTA States
Subjects: EFTA countries, European Economic Area, chemical product, chemicals legislation, dangerous substance, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2022029EN.01003201.xml










20.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/32






Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2021
(2022/C 29/06)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods


To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 January – 30 June 2021, at their meeting on 24 September 2021.




ANNEX
List of authorisation decisions
The following authorisation decisions in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH) have been taken in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 January – 30 June 2021:








Substance name


Commission decision under Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006


Country


Date of decision




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8735


Iceland


10.2.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8735


Liechtenstein


14.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8735


Norway


11.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8798


Iceland


10.2.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8798


Liechtenstein


14.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8798


Norway


11.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8797


Iceland


10.2.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8797


Liechtenstein


14.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 8797


Norway


11.1.2021




Chromium trioxide


C(2020) 7104


Liechtenstein


3.2.2021




Pitch, coal tar, high-temp. (‘CTPht’)


C(2021) 47


Iceland


4.3.2021




Pitch, coal tar, high-temp. (‘CTPht’)


C(2021) 47


Liechtenstein


27.1. 2021




Pitch, coal tar, high-temp. (‘CTPht’)


C(2021) 47


Norway


8.2.2021




Trichloroethylene (TCE)


C(2021) 1385


Iceland


7.4.2021




Trichloroethylene (TCE)


C(2021) 1385


Liechtenstein


23.3.2021




Trichloroethylene (TCE)


C(2021) 1385


Norway


23.3.2021
Case C-46/22 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Liam Jenkinson against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-602/15 RENV, Jenkinson v Council and Others
Date: 2022-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU military mission, European External Action Service, equal treatment, full-time employment, liability, rule of law, social security, temporary employment, work contract








C_2022119EN.01003001.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/30






Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Liam Jenkinson against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-602/15 RENV, Jenkinson v Council and Others
(Case C-46/22 P)
(2022/C 119/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dispose of the case and grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;










—


order the respondents to pay all the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and in each of the earlier proceedings (T-602/15; C-43/17 P; T-602/15 RENV).





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the claims and pleas put forward in that the General Court excluded from its review all principal claims based on a plea of illegality.
The second ground of appeal alleges a reduction of the factual and legal considerations set out by the applicant and therefore of the subject matter of the action in that the General Court exclusively analysed the applicant’s last post in the Eulex Kosovo Mission.
The third ground of appeal is directed against the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejected the first principal head of claim.
The fourth ground of appeal alleges misapplication of the principle of equal treatment between staff members of the Union and infringement of Article 336 TFEU, the General Court having reversed the intention of the EU legislature to offer minimum social security coverage to all employees. In the appellant’s view, the General Court also infringed the concept of the rule of law by excluding all non-contractual liability of the defendants.
The fifth ground of appeal is directed against the rejection, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the third head of claim put forward in the alternative at first instance. In any event, the appellant submits that the General Court should have raised of its own motion certain pleas involving matters of public policy and analysed the merits of the case.