search

… The Government went on to contest the credibility of the valuation report presented by the applicant, on the basis that (a) it had been drawn up by an expert privately retained and remunerated by her, which raised doubts about his and ; that (b) the company where the expert worked had only been officially certified in April 2023, which meant that it did not have a lot of experience; that (c) the expert had not actually inspected the flat; and that (d) the flats chosen by …

… In Kušionová (C-34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, §§ 45-68), the CJEU held that the possibility for a consumer to obtain without excessive difficulty an interim measure preventing the sale of her home to enforce a loan allegedly tainted by an unfair term sufficiently protected her rights under EU consumer‑protection law, as well as that consumer’s right to respect for her home under 7 of the EU of Fundamental Rights. 103. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 8 OF THE CONVENTION Admissibility of the complaint 1. Compatibility ratione materiae (a) The parties’ submissions (i) The Government (ii) The applicant (b) The Court’s assessment 2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IV. APPLICATION OF 41 OF THE CONVENTION A. Pecuniary damage 1. The applicant’s claim and the Government’s comments on it 2. The Court’s assessment B. Non-pecuniary damage 1. …

… (1) TEU and of the , which may be raised by the accused, by the other parties to the proceedings or by the judge himself or herself. …

… It is common ground that that body is not . 13 It follows that a court composed of a judge appointed on a proposal from the National Council of the Judiciary, in the composition resulting from the law referred to in the preceding paragraph, is not properly composed and cannot be regarded as an and tribunal within the meaning, inter alia, of of the . 14 In addition, the referring court states, in its request for a preliminary ruling in Case C-160/ …

… Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following Judgment 1 These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’) and of the principles of legal certainty, inviolability of final court judgments, proportionality and procedural autonomy. 2 The requests have …

… They are appointed as holders of a public office to authenticate legal acts and to perform other tasks in the field of the preventive administration of justice. In the exercise of their functions, notaries cannot represent any specific party, but rather must exercise an and role as regards all parties involved. 13. …

… persons established in Russia - Exemption - Services which are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State - Authentication and execution by a notary of a contract of sale of immovable property - Interpreter assisting the notary - 17(1) of the ) I. …

… 1(12) of Regulation 2022/1904 provides: ‘ 5n is replaced by the following: “ 5n … 2. It shall be prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly … legal advisory services … to: … (b) legal persons, entities or bodies established in Russia. … 6. …

… Such decisions must contain an appropriate statement of reasons and be open to challenge in accordance with a procedure that fully safeguards the rights enshrined in and 48 of the , in particular the rights of the defence. …

… Nothing in the requests for a preliminary ruling shows that any person relies on the right to an effective remedy enshrined in of the or that any person invoking that right relies on a right or a freedom that EU law guarantees. (28) 25. …

… N-B. of the cases giving rise to the present requests for a preliminary ruling breached the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the . In the event those provisions had been breached, the referring court asks whether it should disregard the College resolution, with the result that Judge A. …

… (1) of the []? …

… The Sofiyski rayonen sad (District Court, Sofia, Bulgaria) asks six questions of the Court of Justice on the interpretation, in the light of of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to …

… The Sofiyski rayonen sad (District Court, Sofia) has doubts as to whether 3(6)(b) of Directive 2013/48, which allows Member States to temporarily derogate from the right of access to a lawyer in exceptional circumstances at the pre-trial stage but which has not been transposed into Bulgarian law, has direct effect. …

… 41(2)(a) of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), second, infringement of the right of every person to have his or her affairs handled by the institutions of the European Union, provided for in 41(1) of the , third, infringement of 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission considered that the contribution for the treatment of waste water did not confer an advantage, fourth, that that advantage was selective, fifth, that the staircase …

… The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement of 24 By its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe the requirement of laid down in 41(1) of the , by reason of the conflict of interest of the member of the Commission responsible for competition matters, who signed the contested decision (‘the Commissioner in question’). …

… Fourth, the Commission points out that, pursuant to 250 TFEU and 2(4) of its Code of Conduct, its decisions are adopted by the College of Commissioners by a majority of its members, with the result that a single member cannot have a decisive influence on the adoption of a decision. 26 41(1) of the states, inter alia, that every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union …

… The applicants also referred to 9 § 3 of the Aarhus Convention[1] (see paragraph 141 below) as regards their standing to bring the present proceedings before the courts. . The applicants further argued that the FAC had incorrectly considered that their complaint was of an actio popularis nature. In their view, as a group which was particularly vulnerable to climate change, they had a right to seek protection under 10 of the Constitution and under 2 of the Convention. …

… However, and of section 25a of the APA, the applicants considered that their request should be examined, having regard to the requirements of 6 and 13 of the Convention. 28. On 25 April 2017 the DETEC rejected the applicants’ request for lack of standing. …

… ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 13 OF THE CONVENTION VI. APPLICATION OF 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION A. 41 of the Convention 1. Damage 2. Costs and expenses 3. Default interest B. 46 of the Convention 1. The parties’ submissions 2. …

… It, consequently, does not consider itself subject to the ‘sacred trust’ obligation ordinarily assumed by administering powers under 73 of the UN . The EU institutions therefore must make sure that the agreed arrangements benefit the ‘inhabitants of the territory’ of Western Sahara, as required by 73 of the UN . 187. …

… In 1960, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1541 (XV). (14) According to that resolution, a NSGT can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government in one of three ways: by (1) emergence as a sovereign State; (2) free association with an State; or (3) integration with an State. (15) 10. …

… 73 of the UN also refers to States that ‘assume … responsibility’ over a NSGT. 151. In its appeal in the present case, the Council took the position that 73 of the UN applies to the Kingdom of Morocco as the administering power, given that that State assumed responsibility over the territory of Western Sahara. Both the Council and the Commission confirmed that position at the hearing. …

… to an effective remedy enshrined in of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). …

… Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 14 March 2024 (*) (Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation - of experts consulted by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) - 41 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to good administration - Requirement of objective - Criteria for verifying the absence of conflict of interest - …

… That list shall include the national experts referred to in the first subparagraph and any other experts appointed by the [EMA] or the Commission … …’ 10 Under 63(2) of Regulation No 726/2004: ‘Members of the Management Board, members of the committees, rapporteurs and experts shall not have financial or other interests in the pharmaceutical industry which could affect their . …

… :T:2022:557, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). 16 In the present case, since the decision rejecting the complaint merely confirms the contested decision, the claim for annulment of the decision rejecting the complaint lacks any content. …

… Di Bucci, having regard to the written part of the procedure, having regard to the withdrawal of the request for a hearing submitted by the applicant and having therefore decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, gives the following Judgment 1 By his action based on 270 TFEU, the applicant, [confidential], (1) seeks, first, annulment of the European Commission’s decision not to include his …

… 45 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 4(1) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the new Staff Regulations (‘the GIP’), (ii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the rules of objectivity and and manifest errors of assessment vitiating the consideration of comparative merits, and (iii) infringement of the obligation to state reasons. …