do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-822/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Prima v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01005201.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/52






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Prima v Parliament
(Case T-822/22)
(2023/C 94/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pietro Di Prima (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311132), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case C-794/22, Banco Santander: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 December 2022 — FSC v Banco Santander, S.A.
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, bank resolution, claim, company in difficulties, credit institution, economic stabilisation, financial instrument, financial solvency








C_2023173EN.01001201.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 December 2022 — FSC v Banco Santander, S.A.
(Case C-794/22, Banco Santander)
(2023/C 173/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: FSC

Respondent: Banco Santander, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 34(1)(a) and (b), read together with Article 53(1) and (3) as well as Article 60(2), first subparagraph, points (b) and (c), of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that the possible claim or right that arises from a judgment ordering payment of compensation given against the successor entity to Banco Popular Español, S.A. following an action for damages arising from the marketing of a financial product (subordinated bonds necessarily convertible into shares in the same bank) not included among the additional capital instruments to which the resolution measures for Banco Popular refer, which were ultimately converted into ordinary shares in the bank before the bank resolution measures were adopted (7 June 2017), could be considered a liability affected by the write-down or cancellation provision of Article 53(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU, as an ‘unaccrued’ obligation or claim, such that it would be discharged and would not be enforceable against Banco Santander, as the successor entity to Banco Popular, where the claim from which that judgment ordering payment of compensation arises was brought after the procedure for the resolution of the bank had been concluded?
Or, conversely, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the abovementioned claim or right constitutes an ‘accrued’ obligation or claim — Article 53(3) of the Directive — or ‘liability already accrued’ at the time of the resolution of the bank — Article 60(2)(b) — and, as such, excluded from the effects of the discharge or settlement of those obligations or claims, and, consequently, [that the abovementioned claim or right] is enforceable against Banco Santander, as the successor to Banco Popular, even where the claim from which that judgment ordering payment of compensation arises was brought after the procedure for the resolution of the bank had been concluded?


(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).
Case T-814/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Ventre v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01004601.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/46






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Ventre v Parliament
(Case T-814/22)
(2023/C 94/54)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Riccardo Ventre (Formicola, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311164), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case T-804/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Gemelli v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01003801.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/38






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Gemelli v Parliament
(Case T-804/22)
(2023/C 94/44)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vitaliano Gemelli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311148), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case T-817/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Bonsignore v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01004801.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/48






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Bonsignore v Parliament
(Case T-817/22)
(2023/C 94/57)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vito Bonsignore (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311170), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case T-808/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Mantovani v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01004102.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/41






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Mantovani v Parliament
(Case T-808/22)
(2023/C 94/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Mantovani (Arconate, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311144), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case T-805/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Graziani v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01003901.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/39






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Graziani v Parliament
(Case T-805/22)
(2023/C 94/45)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo Alberto Graziani (Fiesole, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311142), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case T-828/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — ACE v Council
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal aid, provision of services, right to justice








C_2023071EN.01003701.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/37






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — ACE v Council
(Case T-828/22)
(2023/C 71/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ACE-Avocats, ensemble (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare admissible and well-founded the action for annulment in part of the contested regulation, in Article 1(12) thereof, amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2014;










—


annul Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant and rule that it must bear its own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law and, in particular, of several judgments of the Court of Justice and of European directives recognising the right of lawyers to provide legal advice services without specific restrictions;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case T-819/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Catasta v Parliament
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interest, ownership, pension scheme, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty








C_2023094EN.01005001.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/50






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Catasta v Parliament
(Case T-819/22)
(2023/C 94/59)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311125), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;










—


order the European Parliament 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, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.