do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-37/14: Action brought on 20 April 2014  — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2014-04-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, paid leave, sick leave








C_2014184EN.01004701.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/47





Action brought on 20 April 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-37/14)
2014/C 184/79
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament not to allow him to carry over 16 days leave not taken in 2012 to 2013 after the applicant had been on long-term sick leave as a result of a serious illness.

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision refusing to carry over the applicant’s leave, beyond the limit of 12 days, from 2012 to 2013;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 January 2014 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2013;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Case T-239/14: Action brought on 20 April 2014 — Monard v Commission
Date: 2014-04-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, access to EU information, application of EU law, provision of documents








C_2014212EN.01003601.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/36





Action brought on 20 April 2014 — Monard v Commission
(Case T-239/14)
2014/C 212/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eva Monard (Kessel-Lo, Belgium) (represented by: R. Antonini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission No Ref. Ares(2014) 321920 (No SG.B.4/RH/rc-sg.dsg2.b.4(2014) 285433), taken on 10 February by the Secretary General pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in relation to the confirmatory application by Eva Monard for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (GESTDEM 4641/2011);










—


Order the European Commission to bear the costs of these 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 that the Commission was obliged to grant access to the Documents to the applicant, pursuant to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the fundamental right of access to documents, Article 6(1) of the TEU juncto Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007 (the ‘Charter’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘Regulation No 1049/2001’). This is also confirmed by the application of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 a contrario. By failing to do so and by (incorrectly) relying on the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1), a), third indent and Article 4(2), second and third indents of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Commission misapplied the relevant provisions and misused its powers. The Commission also failed to apply in a correct fashion Article 4(6) and Article 4(7) and misused its powers under those provisions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 1 TEU, Articles 15 and 298 TFEU, the fundamental right of access to documents, Article 6(1) of the TEU juncto Article 42 of the Charter and Article 8(1) and Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to handle the applicant’s confirmatory application promptly and by extending the time limit for responding to this confirmatory application in a case that was not exceptional. As such, the Commission misused its powers and misapplied the relevant provisions by unduly postponing the issuance of a decision on the applicant’s confirmatory application.