Catalogue des documents juridiques (cjeu_case)

104 315 documents
26383

Case T-160/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — LTTE v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, groups and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintaining the applicant’s name on the list — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

cjeu_case ·
26384

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2021.#CX v European Commission.#Civil service – Officials – Disciplinary measure – Removal from post – OLAF investigation – Unauthorised and clandestine negotiation of a contract – Conflict of interests – Certification of a non-compliant invoice – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Repeated absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the disciplinary hearing – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Proportionality – Reasonable time – Principle ne bis in idem – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-743/16 RENV II.

cjeu_case ·
26385

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2021.#CX v European Commission.#Civil service – Officials – Disciplinary measure – Removal from post – OLAF investigation – Unauthorised and clandestine negotiation of a contract – Conflict of interests – Certification of a non-compliant invoice – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Repeated absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the disciplinary hearing – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Proportionality – Reasonable time – Principle ne bis in idem – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-743/16 RENV II.

cjeu_case ·
26386

Case T-743/16 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — CX v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — OLAF investigation — Unauthorised and clandestine negotiation of a contract — Conflict of interests — Certification of a non-compliant invoice — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Repeated absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the disciplinary hearing — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Reasonable time — Principle ne bis in idem — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

cjeu_case ·
26390

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021.#Council of the European Union v Hamas.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons – Authentication of the statement of individual reasons – Article 297(2) TFEU.#Case C-833/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
26391

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021.#Council of the European Union v Hamas.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons – Authentication of the statement of individual reasons – Article 297(2) TFEU.#Case C-833/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
26392

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021.#Criminal proceedings against IS.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2010/64/EU – Article 5 – Quality of the interpretation and translation – Directive 2012/13/EU – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) – Right to information about the accusation – Right to interpretation and translation – Directive 2016/343/EU – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial – Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 267 TFEU – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Admissibility – Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling – Disciplinary proceedings – Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful.#Case C-564/19.

cjeu_case ·
26393

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021.#Criminal proceedings against IS.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2010/64/EU – Article 5 – Quality of the interpretation and translation – Directive 2012/13/EU – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) – Right to information about the accusation – Right to interpretation and translation – Directive 2016/343/EU – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial – Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 267 TFEU – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Admissibility – Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling – Disciplinary proceedings – Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful.#Case C-564/19.

cjeu_case ·
26394

Case C-833/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 — Council of the European Union v Hamas (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons — Authentication of the statement of individual reasons — Article 297(2) TFEU)

cjeu_case ·
26395

Case C-564/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against IS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Article 5 — Quality of the interpretation and translation — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) — Right to information about the accusation — Right to interpretation and translation — Directive 2016/343/EU — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 267 TFEU — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Admissibility — Appeal in the interests of the law against a decision ordering a reference for a preliminary ruling — Disciplinary proceedings — Power of the higher court to declare the request for a preliminary ruling unlawful)

cjeu_case ·
26399

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 November 2021.#Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-498/21 P.

cjeu_case ·
26400

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 November 2021.#Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed.#Case C-498/21 P.

cjeu_case ·