do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, holding company, insurance, merger control, pension scheme








C_2015376EN.01000102.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 376/02)
On 6 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7729. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-641/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to EU information, allowances and expenses, data protection, personal data, provision of documents








C_2016048EN.01005501.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/55





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament
(Case T-641/15)
(2016/C 048/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tanja Malle (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8324 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;










—


order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments






(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
Notification of the Austrian Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of Gas Connect Austria GmbH (GCA) and Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH (TAG) as transmission system operators in Austria
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Austria
Subjects: Austria, domestic market, natural gas, private sector, public contract, transport network








C_2015376EN.01001202.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/12





Notification of the Austrian Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of Gas Connect Austria GmbH (GCA) and Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH (TAG) as transmission system operators in Austria
(2015/C 376/08)
Following the Austrian regulatory authority’s final decision of:






1.


6 July 2012, PA 2782/12 and 18 July 2014, PA 1594/14 regarding the certification of Gas Connect Austria GmbH (GCA) as Independent transmission operator;










2.


18 July 2014, PA 1593/14 and 14 September 2015, PA 13199/15 regarding the certification of Trans Austria Gasleitung GmbH (TAG) as Independent transmission operator;




Austria has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of these companies as a transmission system operator operating in Austria in accordance with Article 10 of the Gas Directive of the European Parliament and the Council.
Any additional information can be obtained at the following address:





Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy




Department of Energy and Mining




Division Energy — Legal Affairs




E-mail: POST.III1@bmwfw.gv.at




Tel. +43 171100-3011




Internet: www.bmwfw.gv.at
Case T-656/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to EU information, allowances and expenses, data protection, personal data, provision of documents








C_2016048EN.01006901.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/69





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament
(Case T-656/15)
(2016/C 048/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8552 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;










—


order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments






(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2057 of 13 November 2015 extending the period of application of Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU authorising Member States to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa of Lebanon (notified under document C(2015) 7793)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lebanon, derogation from EU law, import (EU), import licence, labelling, originating product, plant disease, plant health control, potato








L_2015300EN.01004301.xml










17.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 300/43








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2015/2057
of 13 November 2015
         
extending the period of application of Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU authorising Member States to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa of Lebanon


(notified under document C(2015) 7793)




THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the first indent of Article 15(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU (2) authorises derogations from certain provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa of Lebanon for a limited period and subject to specific conditions.












(2)


Some Member States have asked for an extension of the authorisation to derogate provided by Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU.












(3)


Since the circumstances justifying those derogations still apply and there is neither new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions nor any risk of spreading harmful organisms, the authorisation for derogations should be extended by three years.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 11 of Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU the words ‘31 October 2015’ are replaced by ‘31 October 2018’.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 13 November 2015.


For the Commission

Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU of 30 July 2013 authorising Member States to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa of Lebanon (OJ L 205, 1.8.2013, p. 13).
Case T-635/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016016EN.01004802.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/48





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)
(Case T-635/15)
(2016/C 016/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Tuum Srl (San Giustino, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘TUUM’ — Application for registration No 11 939 774

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2624/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the claimed goods in Class 14;










—


instruct OHIM to register the mark applied for;










—


order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-642/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to EU information, allowances and expenses, data protection, personal data, provision of documents








C_2016048EN.01005601.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/56





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament
(Case T-642/15)
(2016/C 048/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8463 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;










—


order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments






(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).