do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-488/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, homicide, jurisdiction








C_2023179EN.01001203.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/12






Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KQ against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-122/22 AJ, KQ v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-488/22 P)
(2023/C 179/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KQ (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo
By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KQ should bear her own costs.
Case C-481/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical compound, drinking water, health risk, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, water pollution, water quality, water supply








C_2022398EN.01001301.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/13






Action brought on 18 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-481/22)
(2022/C 398/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets the minimum requirement of the parametric value for Trihalomethanes — Total set out in Annex I, Part B of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) (the ‘Directive’) in 21 public water supply zones and in 9 private group water schemes, and that the necessary remedial action is taken as soon as possible to restore the quality of the water intended for human consumption in the aforementioned public water supply zones and private group water schemes and failing to give priority to its enforcement action, having regard inter alia to the extent to which the relevant parametric value has been exceeded and to the potential danger to human health, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I Part B, and Article 8(2) of the Directive; and










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 26 December 2003, with stricter requirements applying from 26 December 2008.


(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.
Case C-486/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, homicide, jurisdiction








C_2023179EN.01001201.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/12






Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KM against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-120/22 AJ, KM v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-486/22 P)
(2023/C 179/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KM (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo
By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KM should bear his own costs.
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1243 of 18 July 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2022190EN.01013901.xml










19.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/139








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2022/1243
of 18 July 2022
         
implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1), and in particular Article 6(1) and (3) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 October 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP.












(2)


Further to an evaluation of the relevant circumstances, one entry should be deleted from the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies set out in Annex I to Decision 2012/642/CFSP.












(3)


Decision 2012/642/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex I to Decision 2012/642/CFSP is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 18 July 2022.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  
            OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX
The following entry is deleted from the list set out in Section B (‘Legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 4(1)’) of Annex I to Decision 2012/642/CFSP:






‘23.


Cham Wings Airlines’.
Case C-485/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, homicide, jurisdiction








C_2023179EN.01001102.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/11






Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KO against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-119/22 AJ, KO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-485/22 P)
(2023/C 179/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KO (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo
By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KO should bear her own costs.
Case T-445/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Columbus Stainless v Commission
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Southern Africa, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, tariff quota








C_2022326EN.01003001.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/30






Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Columbus Stainless v Commission
(Case T-445/22)
(2022/C 326/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Columbus Stainless (Pty) Ltd (Middleburg, South Africa) (represented by: L. Catrain González and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/664 of 21 April 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (1), in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicant;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, divided in two limbs, alleging the Commission’s failure to issue a Notice of initiation and carry out an investigation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (2) ahead of adopting the Contested Regulation. The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure constitutes a serious breach of EU law, insofar it violates, first, the provisions and underlying principles of the basic Safeguard Regulation as interpreted in the light of the WTO rules (first limb of the first plea in law), and, second, the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence (second limb of the first plea in law).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s statement of reasons in the Contested Regulation falls short of the standards set out in Article 296 TFEU and settled case law, which requires the statement of reasons to be appropriate to the measure at issue and to disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Institution concerned.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s assessment of the conditions to impose safeguard measures against imports from South Africa is based on several manifest errors of assessment of the relevant facts that led to the adoption of the Contested Measures.






(1)  OJ 2022, L 121, p. 12.

(2)  OJ 2015, L 83, p. 16.
Case T-444/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — HB v Commission
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, decision (EU), indemnification, legal basis, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2022359EN.01008401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/84






Action brought on 18 July 2022 — HB v Commission
(Case T-444/22)
(2022/C 359/102)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
and consequently,










—


annul the decision of 13 May 2022, notified on 16 May 2022, by which the defendant offset, first, the applicant’s claim against the defendant for the costs which the Commission was ordered to pay by the judgments of 21 December 2021, HB v Commission (T-795/19, not published, EU:T:2021:917), and of 21 December 2021, HB v Commission (T-796/19, not published, EU:T:2021:918) and, second, the claim of EUR 1 197 055,86(contract CARDS/2008/166-429) (the principal amount) which the Commission purports to have against the applicant under the recovery decision of 15 October 2019;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for material harm;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence on the part of the Commission to adopt the contested decision and lack of a legal basis for that decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, first, that the Commission does not have a pecuniary claim against the applicant under the Financial Regulation and, second, that there has been an infringement of the Financial Regulation and of Article 266 TEU.
Council Decision of 18 July 2022 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2022 2022/C 278/03
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, budgetary equilibrium, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)




C_2022278EN.01000301.xml










20.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/3






COUNCIL DECISION
of 18 July 2022
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2022
(2022/C 278/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2022 was definitively adopted on 24 November 2021 (2);










—


on 12 April 2022, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2022;




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2022 was adopted on 18 July 2022.
The full text is available for consultation or download on the Council’s Internet: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/.


Done at Brussels, 18 July 2022.


For the Council


The President

Z. NEKULA




(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 45, 24.2.2022, p. 1.
Case T-450/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Sberbank Europe v SRB
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022389EN.01001201.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/12






Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Sberbank Europe v SRB
(Case T-450/22)
(2022/C 389/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the SRB’s No Resolution-decision dated 1 March 2022 with respect to the applicant;










—


order the SRB to bear the applicant's costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant instead of simply refraining from any action in accordance with its finding that the conditions of Article 18 of the ‘SRMR’ (1) were not met.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to grant the applicant a right to be heard.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately the requirements pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and the ECB failed to consider the suspension of the applicant’s liabilities.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to consider a number of obvious and less burdensome alternatives, including the transfer of the applicant to another shareholder.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without providing any plausible explanation for this.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1289 of 18 July 2022 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Hrušovský lepník’ (PGI)
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Banská Bystrica region, Slovakia, confectionery product, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2022196EN.01007301.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 196/73








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1289
of 18 July 2022
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Hrušovský lepník’ (PGI)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovakia’s application to register the name ‘Hrušovský lepník’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Hrušovský lepník’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Hrušovský lepník’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. – bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 July 2022.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 154, 8.4.2022, p. 19.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-490/22 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, homicide, jurisdiction








C_2023179EN.01001302.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/13






Appeal brought on 18 July 2022 by KN against the order of the General Court (President) delivered on 19 May 2022 in Case T-139/22 AJ, KN v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-490/22 P)
(2023/C 179/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KN (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph, advocaat, and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Eulex Kosovo
By order of 31 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that KN should bear her own costs.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1238 of 18 July 2022 extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa and amending Decision (CFSP) 2021/1012
Date: 2022-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Horn of Africa, diplomatic representation, peaceful co-existence, regional development, regional security








L_2022190EN.01012701.xml










19.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/127








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2022/1238
of 18 July 2022
         
extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa and amending Decision (CFSP) 2021/1012


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 33 and Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 8 December 2011, the Council agreed to appoint a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa.












(2)


On 21 June 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1012 (1) appointing Ms Annette WEBER as the EUSR for the Horn of Africa. The EUSR’s mandate is to expire on 31 August 2022.












(3)


The EUSR’s mandate should be extended for a further period of 24 months and a new financial reference amount for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2024 should be established.












(4)


The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Ms Annette WEBER as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa is extended until 31 August 2024. The Council may decide that the mandate of the EUSR be terminated earlier, based on an assessment by the Political and Security Committee and a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


Article 2
Decision (CFSP) 2021/1012 is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 5(1), the following subparagraph is added:

                              ‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the EUSR’s mandate for the period from 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2024 shall be EUR 4 744 381,14.’;










(2)


in Article 14, the second sentence is replaced by the following:

                              ‘The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with regular progress reports and a final comprehensive mandate implementation report by 31 May 2024.’.






Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 July 2022.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1012 of 21 June 2021 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa (OJ L 222, 22.6.2021, p. 27).