do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1127 of 10 July 2015 amending Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 184, 11.7.2015)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: energy efficiency, energy production, environmental protection, waste, waste incineration








L_2015297EN.01000901.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 297/9







Corrigendum to Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1127 of 10 July 2015 amending Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 184 of 11 July 2015
)


On page 15, Annex, concerning the footnote (*) in Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC, third subparagraph:
for:


                  ‘The value of HDD (Heating Degree Days) should be taken as the average of annual HDD values for the incineration facility location, calculated for a period of 20 consecutive years before the year for which CCF is calculated. For the calculation of the value of HDD the following method established by Eurostat should be applied: HDD is equal to (18 °C — Tm) × d if Tm is lower than or equal to 15 °C (heating threshold) and is nil if Tm is greater than 15 °C; where Tm is the mean (Tmin + Tmax/2) outdoor temperature over a period of d days. Calculations are to be executed on a daily basis (d = 1), added up to a year.’,

read:


                  ‘The value of HDD (Heating Degree Days) should be taken as the average of annual HDD values for the incineration facility location, calculated for a period of 20 consecutive years before the year for which CCF is calculated. For the calculation of the value of HDD the following method established by Eurostat should be applied: HDD is equal to (18 °C – Tm) × d if Tm is lower than or equal to 15 °C (heating threshold) and is nil if Tm is greater than 15 °C; where Tm is the mean (Tmin + Tmax)/2 outdoor temperature over a period of d days. Calculations are to be executed on a daily basis (d = 1), added up to a year.’.
Case T-653/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad 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.01006601.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/66





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament
(Case T-653/15)
(2016/C 048/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8732 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 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.7812 — Swiss Re Life Capital/Guardian Holdings Europe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, holding company, insurance, merger control








C_2015376EN.01002301.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7812 — Swiss Re Life Capital/Guardian Holdings Europe)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 376/10)






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 Swiss Re Life Capital Ltd (‘SRLC’, Switzerland), part of the Swiss Re Group (‘Swiss Re’, Switzerland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Guardian Holdings Europe Limited (‘GHEL’, Jersey), holding company for operations trading under the name Guardian Financial Services (‘Guardian’, the UK).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Swiss Re: global wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other insurance-based forms of risk transfer for both life and non-life products,
—   for SRLC: holding company,
—   for GHEL: holding company,
—   for Guardian: owner and manager of life assurance businesses in the UK and Ireland.










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 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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7812 — Swiss Re Life Capital/Guardian Holdings Europe, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7796 — Linamar/Montupet) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, machinery, merger control, metallurgical industry, motor vehicle industry








C_2015376EN.01002401.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7796 — Linamar/Montupet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 376/11)






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 Linamar Corporation (‘Linamar’, Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Montupet SA (‘Montupet’, France) by way of public bid announced on 15 October 2015.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Linamar: machining, assembling and forging of precision metallic components, modules and systems for engines, and other parts designed for global vehicle and industrial markets,
—   for Montupet: design and production of cast aluminium parts for the automotive industry.










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.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7796 — Linamar/Montupet, 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’).
Case T-643/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof 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.01005701.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/57





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament
(Case T-643/15)
(2016/C 048/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Staffan Dahllof (Kastrup, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8678 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-360/14: Order of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cider, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01005501.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/55





Order of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)
(Case T-360/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 027/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2014 (Case R 1302/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH and Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB and Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-650/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán 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.01006401.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/64





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament
(Case T-650/15)
(2016/C 048/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8551 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 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-657/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros 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.01007001.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/70





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament
(Case T-657/15)
(2016/C 048/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8553 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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7781 — Marubeni-Itochu Steel/Sumitomo Corporation/MITS JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, metallurgical industry, wholesale trade








C_2015376EN.01000101.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7781 — Marubeni-Itochu Steel/Sumitomo Corporation/MITS JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 376/01)
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 the 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 32015M7781. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.