do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-807/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Lombardo 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.01004101.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/41






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Lombardo v Parliament
(Case T-807/22)
(2023/C 94/47)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Raffaele Lombardo (Catania, 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. D311153), 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-781/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2022 by LE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-475/20, LE v Commission
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, debt, equal treatment, financial aid, judicial review, reimbursement of aid








C_2023063EN.01002501.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/25






Appeal brought on 23 December 2022 by LE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-475/20, LE v Commission
(Case C-781/22 P)
(2023/C 63/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement of the General Court on the request for annulment of or another ruling concerning the dispute in relation to the Decision C(2020)3988 final;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings on pleas and objections raised by LE, also on behalf of its linked parties, against and in relation to the contested Decision;




Alternatively






—


rule or take an interlocutory judgement for hearing witnesses or providing evidence supporting the case prior to adjudicate in the main claims;










—


set aside the judgement of the General Court on the request for annulment of or another ruling concerning the dispute in relation to the Decision C(2020)3988 final, and if so ascertained and adjudicated by the Court, to refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings on pleas and objections against and in relation to the contested Decision;




More alternatively






—


rule or take such other measures as the European Court of Justice shall deem just and appropriate.




In the procedural issue






—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the lawyer's fees on its part.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant put forward four pleas in law, some of which consist of several parts. By these pleas, LE submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by:






—


basing its assessment of the substance of the contested decision on the statement of objections provided by the European Commission;










—


applying excessively strict and incorrect rules of evidence to decisions;










—


limiting the judicial review to be carried out by the General Court to the minimum;










—


failing to observe the applicable legal criteria relating to the procedural legal principles and ignored legal principles, such as adversarial proceedings, principles of equal treatment, good administration, legitimate expectations and case law in favor of the Applicant;










—


relying on alleged evidence that was not provided or submitted to Applicant prior to the Decision taken by the Commission.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 22 December 2022 2022/C 491/06
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022491EN.01001001.xml










23.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 491/10






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 December 2022
(2022/C 491/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0633 




JPY


Japanese yen


140,42 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4367 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88243 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0500 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9852 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4123 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,215 




HUF


Hungarian forint


402,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6443 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8993 




TRY


Turkish lira


19,8553 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5804 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4484 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2883 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6918 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4356 




KRW


South Korean won


1 361,75 




ZAR


South African rand


18,2238 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4229 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5380 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 525,91 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7051 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,705 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,849 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5386 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8485 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0365 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-801/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between)
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fire protection, protective equipment, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2023054EN.01002201.xml










13.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/22






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between)
(Case T-801/22)
(2023/C 54/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: 3M Company (St. Paul, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: T. de Haan, and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between) — Application for registration No 16 438 962

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2022 in Case R 1151/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.10838 – BERSAN EUROPEA DE AUTOMOCION / ASTARA WESTERN EUROPE (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 491/05
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, harbour installation, holding company, logistics, maintenance, merger control, motor vehicle, renewable energy, sale, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022491EN.01000901.xml










23.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 491/9






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.10838 – BERSAN EUROPEA DE AUTOMOCION / ASTARA WESTERN EUROPE
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 491/05)
On 16 November 2022, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 16 December 2022, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.


(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission 2022/C 491/02
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU competition policy, World Trade Organisation, countervailing charge, foreign capital, foreign investment, international trade, multilateral agreement, restriction on competition, support policy








C_2022491EN.01000601.xml










23.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 491/6






Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
(2022/C 491/02)
The Union remains committed to an open and rules-based multilateral trading system with a modernised WTO at its core and to further enhancing the effectiveness of the multilateral framework on subsidies. It reaffirms its commitment to support the modernisation of the WTO rules to address distortions to trade and to competition. In particular, the Union will engage in modernising rules on industrial subsidies to enhance the proper functioning of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and to promote compliance and enforcement.
Case C-783/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 Decemer 2022 by Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-273/21, The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023094EN.01002401.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/24






Appeal brought on 23 Decemer 2022 by Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-273/21, The Bazooka Companies v EUIPO
(Case C-783/22 P)
(2023/C 94/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (represented by: P. Ratnicki-Kiczka, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, The Bazooka Companies, Inc.
By order of 2 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that the Appellant should bear his own costs.
Case T-823/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Dupuis 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.01005301.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/53






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Dupuis v Parliament
(Case T-823/22)
(2023/C 94/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Olivier Dupuis (Brussels, Belgium) (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. D311143), 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-821/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Meo 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.01005101.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/51






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Di Meo v Parliament
(Case T-821/22)
(2023/C 94/61)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Maria Di Meo (Cellole, 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. D311176), 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-812/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Viola 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.01004402.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/44






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Viola v Parliament
(Case T-812/22)
(2023/C 94/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vincenzo Viola (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. D311141), 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-810/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Nobilia 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.01004301.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/43






Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Nobilia v Parliament
(Case T-810/22)
(2023/C 94/50)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mauro Nobilia (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. D311156), 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.
Statement of the European Commission on clarifications as regards the application of Regulation 2022/2560, pursuant to Article 46 thereof 2022/C 491/04
Date: 2022-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, foreign aid, foreign capital, foreign investment, market supervision, public procurement, restriction on competition, single market, third country








C_2022491EN.01000801.xml










23.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 491/8






Statement of the European Commission on clarifications as regards the application of Regulation 2022/2560, pursuant to Article 46 thereof
(2022/C 491/04)
The Commission commits to clarifying the application of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 (1) on the existence of a distortion caused by a foreign subsidy on the internal market, the application of the balancing test set out in Article 6 of this Regulation, and the assessment of a distortion in a public procurement procedure set out in Article 27(1) of this Regulation.
The Commission will make such initial clarifications public at the latest 12 months after the date of application of these provisions.
Guidelines issued pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 may replace these initial clarifications.


(1)  OJ L 331, 23.12.2022, p. 1.