search

… , C-385/07 P, EU:C:2009:456, paragraph 191). 213 In the determination of their civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against them, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal established by law in accordance with of the and Article 6 of the ECHR (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 July 2009, Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v Commission, C-385/07 P, EU:C:2009:456, paragraphs 177 …

… First complaint, alleging error of law 156 The applicant submits that the Commission infringed 41 of the by refusing to assess, before adopting the contested decision, whether its adoption was compatible with the reasonable time principle. 157 In that regard, it should be noted that, as the applicant points out, the Commission is required to observe the reasonable time principle laid down in 41 of the (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 October 2002, Limburgse Vinyl …

… The Commission’s first decision (2002) 2 From October to December 2000, the Commission of the European Communities carried out a number of checks pursuant to CS at the premises of certain Italian undertakings engaged in the manufacture of concrete reinforcing bars, including the applicant, and at the premises of an association of undertakings, the Federazione Imprese Siderurgiche Italiane (Federation of Italian Steel Undertakings; ‘Federacciai’). …

… in of the , are respected. …

… of the enshrines the entitlement of everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an and tribunal previously established by law. …

… 2 and 19(1) TEU, 325(1) TFEU, of the and 4 of Directive 2017/1371. …

… 15 of Directive 2002/58 and 7, 8, 11, and 52 of the . 25. …

… , must be interpreted as precluding the prior review of access from being performed in an adapted fashion, for example as an automated review, where applicable under the supervision of a department within the body which offers guarantees of and in relation to the officials who have the task of collecting the data. 107. …

… The retention and analysis of those IP addresses therefore constitute a serious interference with the fundamental rights enshrined in 7 and 8 of the and may have a deterrent effect on the exercise of freedom of expression guaranteed in 11 of the . (31) 65. …

… Accordingly, the information provided by the Scientific Advisory Board was not objective and that board did not act . 70 The Commission disputes those arguments. 71 It must be recalled that the right to be heard in all proceedings is affirmed not only in and 48 of the , which ensure observance of both the rights of the defence and the right to fair legal process in all judicial proceedings, but also in 41 of the , which guarantees the right to good administration …

… 41(2) of the provides that the right to good administration includes, inter alia, the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken (see judgment of 22 May 2019, Ertico - ITS Europe v Commission, T-604/15, EU:T:2019:348, paragraph and the case-law cited). 72 According to settled case-law, observance of the rights of the defence is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in an …

… In that regard, it was agreed that the checks and controls would not be carried out by the members of the Commission’s staff who were responsible for the project’s grant and its implementation. 56 The Commission disputes those arguments. 57 Under 41(2)(c) of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), the administration has an obligation to give reasons for its decisions. …

… 63(2) and 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, EUIPO and the intervener submit that there has been no infringement of 41 of the . …

… 63(2) and 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 and 41 of the . As regards the applicant’s argument that, in essence, the lack of any development of a ground for refusal ought to be analysed as a withdrawal of that ground (see paragraph 33 above), it must be pointed out that that argument is part of an extension of the applicant’s line of argument, both in its appeal before the Board of Appeal and before the Court, by which it sought to show that the Board of Appeal was not entitled …

… character and by putting forward on their own initiative arguments on which the applicant had, moreover, never been in a position to present its comments, the two adjudicating bodies of EUIPO infringed 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 and also 41(1) and 41(2)(a) of the . 33 The applicant equates the intervener’s failure to submit any arguments relating to 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 with an abandonment. …

… , guaranteed by 41 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 132 The applicant notes that 3(4) of the GIPs provides for the intervention of a third person in an appraisal only in units comprising more than 20 staff members. …

… it is appropriate to examine its merits. 145 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the right to have one’s affairs handled by the institutions of the European Union, guaranteed by 41(1) of the of Fundamental Rights, is a general principle of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 December 2017, Spain v Council, C-521/15, EU:C:2017:982, paragraphs 88 and 89), and that, according to the case-law, the principle of good administration means inter alia the obligation …

… The third plea alleges breach of the principle of and of the GIPs. The fourth plea alleges breach of 5 of the GIPs and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. The fifth plea in law alleges breach of the right to a fair hearing. …

… It is argued that this constitutes infringement of 9(4) of Regulation No 883/2013 and 41(2) of the . …

… The same reasoning applies, in the applicant’s submission, to OLAF’s subsequent acts and, in particular, to the final report. 35 Third, the applicant takes the view that the contested acts deprived it of the effective exercise of certain of its fundamental and procedural rights, and that to declare its claim for annulment inadmissible would be contrary to of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’) and to 6 to 8 of the Convention for the Protection …

… In that regard, in so far as the applicant alleges infringement of its right to be heard under 41(2)(a) of the , it is necessary to ascertain whether the applicant had more extensive protection under that provision than that afforded to it by 9(4) of Regulation No 883/2013, which meant that, notwithstanding the wording of that provision, OLAF should have heard the applicant before the communication of 9 June 2020 to the Member States. 101 41(2)(a) of the provides …

… The applicant also requested the domestic court to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of police racial profiling to identify irregular migrants with 21 of the of Fundamental Rights and 4, 5, 6 and 21 of the Directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals[1]. 26. …

… He further argued that he had duly exhausted domestic remedies in the administrative proceedings, in that he had lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. . …

… of the complaints concerning 14 of the Convention taken together with 8 and 1 of Protocol No. 12, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, the Défenseur des Droits de la République Française, Rights International Spain and Plataforma por la Gestión Policial de la Diversidad, who were granted …

… It cannot be inferred from this that the conditions for appointment of the judges that make up the referring court necessarily satisfy the guarantees of access to an and tribunal previously established by law, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU or of the of Fundamental Rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraph 74). 62 Finally, it must be stated that a different …

… and tribunal previously established by law, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraph 72). 60 However, in the present case, since the Court has not been made aware, either at the close of the written part of the procedure or, moreover, at the deliberation …

… assessment from that arising from paragraphs 57 to 61 above could be made in circumstances in which, beyond the personal situation of the judge or judges formally submitting a request pursuant to 267 TFEU, other factors were to have repercussions on the functioning of the referring court to which those judges belong and thus contribute to undermining the and of that court (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, …

… It therefore cannot be inferred that the conditions for appointment of the judges that make up the referring court necessarily satisfy the guarantees of access to an and tribunal previously established by law, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU or of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’) (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2022, Getin Noble Bank, C-132/20, EU:C:2022:235, paragraph 74). 34 Moreover …

… , the presumption may be rebutted where a final judicial decision handed down by a national or international court or tribunal leads to the conclusion that the judge or judges constituting the referring court are not an and tribunal previously established by law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of of the . …

… That is, in particular, essential to the proper working of the system of judicial cooperation embodied by the preliminary ruling mechanism under 267 TFEU, in so far as the mechanism may be activated only by a body responsible for applying EU law which satisfies, inter alia, that criterion of (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 July 2020, Land Hessen C-272/19, EU:C:2020:535, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited). 30 The guarantees of and required …