do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-589/25: Action brought on 23 August 2025 – ZA v EIB
Date: 2025-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: conflict of interest, damages, data protection, disciplinary proceedings, maladministration, pension scheme, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_202505852EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5852


10.11.2025






Action brought on 23 August 2025 – ZA v EIB


(Case T-589/25)

(C/2025/5852)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZA (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the EIB President’s decision dated 6 May 2025 with the decision to reduce the applicant’s pension by 50 % for a period of 4 years;










—


grant compensation to the applicant for all material and moral damages and distress that the applicant suffered as a result of multiple irregularities and continuous infringements of applicant’s fundamental rights directly relating to the contested decision, to the illegal retention of the payments due upon the applicant’s employment termination i.e. the applicant’s Optional Supplementary Pension Scheme (hereinafter, ‘OSPS’) capital, untaken days of leave and termination allowance (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Sums Due Upon Departure’), and to the processes initiated and/or followed by and/or agreed with the European Investment Bank relating to such disputed decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the legal fees of the current proceedings.





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 illegality of the disputed decision following the conflict of interest and improper initiation and conduct of investigations and disciplinary proceedings in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, rights to data protection and privacy, right to good administration and respect by the defendant of its duty to care towards the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the disputed decision and related violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5852/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-587/25: Action brought on 23 August 2025 – Ola Energy v Council
Date: 2025-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, maladministration, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_202505363EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5363


13.10.2025






Action brought on 23 August 2025 – Ola Energy v Council


(Case T-587/25)

(C/2025/5363)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ola Energy Holding Ltd (Floréal, Mauritius) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the action for annulment admissible and well founded;










—


Annul the Decision of the Council dated 13 June 2025 (SGS 25 / 2281) refusing to transpose into the EU legal order the Implementation Assistance Notice No 1 of 7 March 2012, issued by the UN Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1970 (2011) concerning Libya;










—


In the alternative, declare that the Council has infringed the Treaties, in breach of Article 265 TFEU, by failing to adopt a measure to amend or clarify Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 following the applicant’s formal request of 11 March 2025;










—


Order the Council to pay all the legal fees and costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to comply with binding UN Security Council Resolutions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to review restrictive measures.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging error of law.










9.


Alternatively, alleging a failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5363/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)