do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-632/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — OG v EDA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — EDA staff — Vacancy notice — Head of Unit post — Rejection of application — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Transparency — Objectivity — Principle of sound administration — Infringement of the vacancy notice — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-material harm)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification, job vacancy, recruitment, servant (EU), transparency in decision-making








C_2022284EN.01002702.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/27






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — OG v EDA
(Case T-632/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - EDA staff - Vacancy notice - Head of Unit post - Rejection of application - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Objectivity - Principle of sound administration - Infringement of the vacancy notice - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-material harm)
(2022/C 284/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OG (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Defence Agency (represented by: C. Ribeiro, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Defence Agency (EDA) of 13 December 2019 by which she was not placed on the reserve list for the position of Head of the IT Unit in the Corporate Services Directorate and, secondly, compensation for the harm she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders OG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Case T-585/21: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Zásilkovna v Commission (State aid — Compensation granted for the provision of the universal service obligation in the postal sector — Complaint — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, control of State aid, postal service, reimbursement of aid, services of general interest, universal service








C_2022284EN.01003801.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/38






Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Zásilkovna v Commission
(Case T-585/21) (1)

(State aid - Compensation granted for the provision of the universal service obligation in the postal sector - Complaint - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2022/C 284/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zásilkovna s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Carpi Badía and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Commission’s letter of 9 July 2021 concerning the compensation granted to Česká pošta for the provision of a universal service obligation for the period from 2018 to 2022 and the decision of 23 June 2020 initiating the formal investigation procedure (SA.55208 (2020/C), SA.55497 (2019/FC) and SA.55686 (2019/FC)) and, second, of the Commission’s letter of 31 August 2021 concerning the compensation granted to Česká pošta for the provision of a universal service obligation for the period from 2018 to 2022 (SA.55208 (2020/C)).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and Česká pošta.










3.


Zásilkovna s. r. o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.










4.


Zásilkovna, the Czech Republic and Česká pošta shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Case T-512/19: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Lack of direct concern — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, Spain, admissibility, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties








C_2022284EN.01003201.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/32






Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v SRB
(Case T-512/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2022/C 284/40)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and the 36 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: B. Fernández García, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, C. Schwedler, P. Gey, V. Del Pozo Espinosa De Los Monteros, G. Barthet and J. Krämer, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the ‘decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) not to carry out an ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA, communicated to the applicants by letter of 20 May 2019’.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Case T-754/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Cristescu v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Acts contrary to the dignity of the office — Preliminary assessment — Administrative investigation — Mandate entrusted to IDOC — Data protection — Principe of impartiality — Principe of sound administration — Disciplinary procedure — Rights of the defence — Disciplinary penalty of reprimand — Procedural irregularity — Reasonable time — Extenuating circumstances)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, administrative sanction, data protection, disciplinary proceedings, personal data, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022284EN.01002901.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/29






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Cristescu v Commission
(Case T-754/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Acts contrary to the dignity of the office - Preliminary assessment - Administrative investigation - Mandate entrusted to IDOC - Data protection - Principe of impartiality - Principe of sound administration - Disciplinary procedure - Rights of the defence - Disciplinary penalty of reprimand - Procedural irregularity - Reasonable time - Extenuating circumstances)
(2022/C 284/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 27 February 2020 by which it imposed on him the disciplinary penalty of reprimand pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 February 2020 which imposed a reprimand on Mr Adrian Sorin Cristescu;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case C-706/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Petróleos de Portugal — Petrogal, SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to set out the legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: GATT, crude oil, customs regulations, import (EU), interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2022276EN.01000201.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/2






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Petróleos de Portugal — Petrogal, SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais
(Case C-706/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to set out the legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2022/C 276/02)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Petróleos de Portugal — Petrogal, SA

Defendant: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 27 October 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Date lodged: 24.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court of 1 June 2022 in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Article 61(3)(c) EEA – State aid – Admissibility – Obligation to initiate formal investigation procedure – Statement of reasons) 2023/C 29/05
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, communications systems, control of State aid, investment aid








C_2023029EN.01004001.xml










26.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/40






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 June 2022
in Case E-4/21
Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority


(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Article 61(3)(c) EEA – State aid – Admissibility – Obligation to initiate formal investigation procedure – Statement of reasons)


(2023/C 29/05)
In Case E-4/21, Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION seeking the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021, Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 1 June 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Annuls ESA Decision No 023/21/COL concerning aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.










2.


Orders ESA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.










3.


Orders Iceland to bear its own costs.
Case T-440/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty) (Dumping — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive anti-dumping duty — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legal certainty — Article 266 TFEU — Proportionality — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 103 of the Union Customs Code — Registration Regulation — Plea of illegality — Admissibility)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, cast-iron, customs debt, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law, right to justice








C_2022294EN.01002402.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/24






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty)
(Case T-440/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive anti-dumping duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)
(2022/C 294/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-301/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10736 – ITOCHU / ISUZU MOTORS / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 221/01
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, economic concentration, export, foreign trade, hire purchase, import, large vehicle, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle rental








C_2022221EN.01000101.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10736 – ITOCHU / ISUZU MOTORS / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 221/01)
On 1 June 2022, 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 32022M10736. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 31 May 2022 2022/C 217/02
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022217EN.01000201.xml










1.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

31 May 2022
(2022/C 217/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0713 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4394 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85138 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5053 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0281 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0983 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,714 




HUF


Hungarian forint


396,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5805 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9408 




TRY


Turkish lira


17,5817 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4933 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3573 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4063 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6459 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4687 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,32 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7450 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1402 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5410 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 580,15 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6907 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,323 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,751 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,0965 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9870 




INR


Indian rupee


83,2310 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-358/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Bolloré logistics SA v Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, customs debt, exemption from customs duties, guarantee, rights of the defence








C_2022340EN.01001801.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Bolloré logistics SA v Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS
(Case C-358/22)
(2022/C 340/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Bolloré logistics SA

Respondents in cassation: Direction interrégionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Recette régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Caen, Bolloré Ports de Cherbourg SAS

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 195, 217 and 221 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the customs administration may not demand payment of a customs debt from the joint and several guarantor when the duties have not been lawfully communicated to the debtor?










2








(a)


Does observance of the rights of the defence, including the right to present observations before any measure adversely affecting a person, which is a fundamental principle of EU law, mean that where, in the case of non-payment of the customs debt by the debtor within the prescribed period, its recovery is sought from the guarantor, the customs administration must first place the guarantor in a position in which it can effectively make known its views as regards the information on which the customs administration intends to base its decision to enforce payment?










(b)


Is the fact that the debtor of the customs debt has itself been placed in a position in which it can effectively make known its views before the communication of the duties relevant to the answer to Question 2(a)?










(c)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, what is the decision adversely affecting the guarantor before which there must be an inter partes phase: the decision of the customs administration to enter the duties in the accounts and to notify them to the debtor of the customs debt or the decision to enforce payment from the guarantor?










(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23.
Case T-253/21: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aquino v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff Committee of the Parliament — Election of the president of the Staff Committee — Annulment of the election — Liability)
Date: 2022-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP Committee, administrator, election, indemnification, invalidity of an election








C_2022284EN.01002902.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/29






Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Aquino v Parliament
(Case T-253/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Staff Committee of the Parliament - Election of the president of the Staff Committee - Annulment of the election - Liability)
(2022/C 284/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Bukšek Tomac, R. Ignătescu and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment (i) of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 July 2020, by which that institution annulled his election as president of the Staff Committee of the Parliament (‘the SC’), and, (ii), in essence, of the constituent meeting of the SC of 14 September 2020, in particular as regards the election of its president, and, second, compensation for the damage which he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Roberto Aquino to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.