do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-38/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – Tesla (Shanghai) v Commission
Date: 2025-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, carriage of passengers, countervailing charge, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, import (EU), originating product, vehicle parts








C_202501451EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1451


10.3.2025






Action brought on 22 January 2025 – Tesla (Shanghai) v Commission


(Case T-38/25)

(C/2025/1451)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tesla (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard, B. Maniatis and E. Zachari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5, 7(3) and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for one of the grants received by the applicant in the contested Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 5, 7(1) and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for the applicant relating to the fiscal policy scheme for domestic battery electric vehicles in the contested Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5 and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 by countervailing the Enterprise Income Tax key industries reduction scheme with respect to the applicant in the contested Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5 and 7(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for the applicant with respect to the government provision of batteries for less than adequate remuneration in the contested Regulation.






(1)  
            OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1451/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1093/23: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2025 – AH v Commission (Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance – Calculation of the five-year reference period – Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Liability)
Date: 2025-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, indemnification, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501428EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1428


10.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2025 – AH v Commission


(Case T-1093/23)
                (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Calculation of the five-year reference period - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Liability)
(C/2025/1428)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AH (represented by: A. Guillerme, T. Bontinck and L. Bouchet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of the European Commission of 9 February 2023 refusing to grant him entitlement to the expatriation allowance, secondly, the ‘recognition’ of his right to receive the expatriation allowance with effect from 1 February 2023 and, thirdly, compensation for the non-material damage he allegedly suffered as a result of the contested decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of the European Commission of 9 February 2023 refusing to grant AH entitlement to the expatriation allowance;










2.


Orders that AH be entitled to receive the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union with effect from 1 February 2023;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/754, 22.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1428/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-528/17: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2025 – Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB (Action for annulment and for damages – Economic and monetary policy – Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms – Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español – Act not open to challenge – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2025-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_202502076EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2076


14.4.2025






Order of the General Court of 22 January 2025 – Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB


(Case T-528/17)
                (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Act not open to challenge - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2025/2076)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: María Ballesté Torralba (Alcarrás, Spain), David Lozano Jiménez (Alcarràs), María Carmen Estruch Martínez (Alcarràs), Ramón Ribes Jové (Alcarràs) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: H. Ehlers, M. Fernández Rupérez, A. Lapresta Bienz and J. Rius Riu, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Re:

By their action, the applicants seek, first, under Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and, secondly, reimbursement of the loss in value of all of their assets arising from the adoption of that decision and compensation for the non-material damage resulting from that loss.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission, Banco Santander, SA and Banco Popular Español, SA.










3.


Ms María Ballesté Torralba, Mr David Lozano Jiménez, Ms María Carmen Estruch Martínez and Mr Ramón Ribes Jové shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).










4.


The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










5.


Banco Santander shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Banco Popular Español relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  
            OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2076/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)