do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-100/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — ABLV Bank v ECB
Date: 2023-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Latvia, access to EU information, bank








C_2023173EN.01003001.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/30






Action brought on 20 February 2023 — ABLV Bank v ECB
(Case T-100/23)
(2023/C 173/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision dated 8 December 2022 with respect to the applicant by which the ECB rejected the applicant’s request for access to ECB documents pursuant to the rules governing public access to documents;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the list of documents provided by the defendant in the contested decision was manifestly incomplete.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB illegitimately referred the applicant to the website of the authorities of a third country instead of disclosing the relevant document held by itself.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegally denied access to seven documents.






—


The applicant claims that the defendant failed to provide specific grounds for the denial of access with respect to each document, that the defendant incorrectly interpreted and applied the concept of ‘information which is protected as such under Union law’, pursuant to Article 4(1)(c) of the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents, (1) that the ECB incorrectly interpreted and applied the commercial interest exception under the first indent of Article 4(2) of the said ECB decision, that the ECB failed to consider the public interest in disclosure and that the ECB incorrectly relied on, and failed to provide adequate reasons in relation to, the protection of documents for internal use or preliminary consultations with the relevant national authorities, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the said ECB decision.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide access to the file.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegitimately and without any legal basis discontinued the processing of part of the request for access.






(1)  Decision 2004/258/EC (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10959 – SATS / TEMASEK / PH 243WFS)
Date: 2023-02-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, ground handling, merger control, provision of services








C_202301592EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1592


19.12.2023






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10959 – SATS / TEMASEK / PH 243WFS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2023/1592)

On 20 February 2023, 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 32023M10959. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1592/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-83/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — VP v Parliament
Date: 2023-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2023155EN.01006101.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/61






Action brought on 20 February 2023 — VP v Parliament
(Case T-83/23)
(2023/C 155/78)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: VP (represented by: M. Brzozowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Decision No D 314619 of the President of the European Parliament of 16 December 2022 finding that the applicant had engaged in psychological harassment in relation to an accredited parliamentary assistant;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





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 infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
Case T-89/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Boshab v Council
Date: 2023-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence








C_2023127EN.01005501.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/55






Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Boshab v Council
(Case T-89/23)
(2023/C 127/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Evariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022, (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022, (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex I to that regulation;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-88/23, Kande Mupompa v Council.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2412 of 8 December 2022 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 122).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2401 of 8 December 2022 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2022 L 317, p. 32).
Case C-96/23 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by TL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-677/21, TL v Commission
Date: 2023-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, servant (EU), staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202300113EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/113


16.10.2023





Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by TL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-677/21, TL v Commission
(Case C-96/23 P)
(C/2023/113)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: TL (represented by: P. Nowak, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 6 September 2023, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that TL should bear her own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/113/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)