do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-592/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 13 November 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v British Film Institute
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, cultural organisation, culture industry, national law, provision of services, public institution, service, tax exemption








C_2016027EN.01001902.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 13 November 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v British Film Institute
(Case C-592/15)
(2016/C 027/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant: British Film Institute

Questions referred







i.


Are the terms of Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Directive (1), in particular the words ‘certain cultural services’, sufficiently clear and precise such that Article 13A(1)(n) is of direct effect so as to exempt the supply of those cultural services by bodies governed by public law or other recognised cultural bodies, such as the supplies made by the Respondent in the present case, in the absence of any domestic implementing legislation?










ii.


Do the terms of Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Directive, in particular the words ‘certain cultural services’, permit Member States any discretion in their application by means of implementing legislation and, if so, what discretion?










iii.


Do the same conclusions as above apply to Article 132(1)(n) of the Principal VAT Directive (2)?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment

OJ L 145, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

OJ L 347, p. 1.
Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU law, access to EU information








C_2016007EN.01002401.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/24





Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))
(2016/C 007/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications for annulment of (i) the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an Impact Assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft Impact Assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-652/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Liedtke/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_2016078EN.01002101.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/21





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Liedtke/Parliament
(Case T-652/15)
(2016/C 078/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dirk Liedtke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8547 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 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).
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2201 of 13 November 2015 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM Ukraine/5/2015)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: EU police mission, Georgia, Ukraine, public safety, technical cooperation




L_2015313EN.01004101.xml










28.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 313/41








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2015/2201
of 13 November 2015
         
on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM Ukraine/5/2015)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (1),

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to take the relevant decisions on the acceptance of proposed contributions to EUAM Ukraine by third States.












(2)


The Civilian Operation Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contributions from Georgia to EUAM Ukraine and to consider the contribution as significant.












(3)


Georgia should be exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUAM Ukraine,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

Third States' contributions


1.   The contribution from Georgia to EUAM Ukraine is accepted and considered to be significant.


2.   Georgia is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUAM Ukraine.



Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 November 2015.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

W. STEVENS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42.
Case T-649/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth 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.01006301.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/63





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth v Parliament
(Case T-649/15)
(2016/C 048/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Balazs Toth (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8490 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).
Case T-661/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo 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.01007401.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/74





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo v Parliament
(Case T-661/15)
(2016/C 048/82)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rui Araujo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8663 C of the European Parliament of 15 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).
Case T-666/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić 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








C_2016048EN.01007901.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/79





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament
(Case T-666/15)
(2016/C 048/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8672 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).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7840 — LetterOne Holdings/E.ON E&P Norge) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, holding company, investment company, merger control, mining industry, oil industry








C_2015376EN.01002501.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7840 — LetterOne Holdings/E.ON E&P Norge)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 376/12)






1.


On 6 November 2015 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking DEA Deutsche Erdoel AG (‘DEA Deutsche’, Germany), an indirectly solely-controlled subsidiary of LetterOne Holdings S.A (‘LetterOne’, Luxembourg), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over E.ON E&P Norge AS (‘E.ON E&P Norge’, Norway).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


LetterOne is a privately owned Luxembourg-based holding company focusing on investments, through its subsidiaries, in the energy and technology sectors,










—


E.ON E&P Norge is part of E.ON’s global unit ‘E.ON Exploration & Production’ for worldwide oil and gas exploration and production activities. E.ON E&P Norge’s activities are limited to the Norwegian shelf.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7840 — LetterOne Holdings/E.ON E&P Norge, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-639/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara 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.01005301.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/53





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament
(Case T-639/15)
(2016/C 048/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8602 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).