do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015376EN.01000201.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 November 2015
(2015/C 376/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0726




JPY


Japanese yen


131,92




DKK


Danish krone


7,4602




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70640




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3009




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0769




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3240




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,031




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,25




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2270




RON


Romanian leu


4,4430




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0938




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5073




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4293




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3132




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6447




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5246




KRW


South Korean won


1 245,87




ZAR


South African rand


15,2929




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8330




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6170




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 615,93




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6819




PHP


Philippine peso


50,475




RUB


Russian rouble


70,9230




THB


Thai baht


38,528




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0793




MXN


Mexican peso


18,0004




INR


Indian rupee


71,1282






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-646/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas 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.01006001.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/60





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament
(Case T-646/15)
(2016/C 048/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Harry Karanikas (Chalandri, 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)8594 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-664/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg 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.01007701.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/77





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg v Parliament
(Case T-664/15)
(2016/C 048/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jacob Borg (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8486 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 C-591/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 November 2015 — The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Treasury
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, freedom to provide services, intra-EU trade, tax system, territorial law, third country








C_2016027EN.01001901.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 November 2015 — The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Treasury
(Case C-591/15)
(2016/C 027/22)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Treasury

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of Article 56 TFEU and in the light of the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom:






1.1.


Are Gibraltar and the UK to be treated as if they were part of a single Member State for the purposes of EU law and so that Article 56 TFEU does not apply, save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure? Alternatively,










1.2.


Having regard to Article 355(3) TFEU, does Gibraltar have the constitutional status of a separate territory to the UK within the EU such that the provision of services between Gibraltar and the UK is to be treated as intra-EU trade for the purposes of Article 56 TFEU? Alternatively,










1.3.


Is Gibraltar to be treated as a third country or territory with the effect that EU law is only engaged in respect of trade between the two in circumstances where EU law has effect between a Member State and a non-Member State? Alternatively,










1.4.


Is the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the UK to be treated in some other way for the purposes of Article 56 TFEU?














2.


Do national measures of taxation that have features such as those found in the New Tax Regime constitute a restriction on the right to the free movement of services for the purposes of Article 56 TFEU?










3.


If so, are the aims, which the referring Court has found domestic measures (such as the New Tax Regime) to pursue, legitimate aims, which are capable of justifying the restriction on the right to free movement of services under Article 56 TFEU?
Case T-655/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre 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.01006801.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/68





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament
(Case T-655/15)
(2016/C 048/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8334 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-665/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica 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.01007801.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/78





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
(Case T-665/15)
(2016/C 048/86)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8305 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-662/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić 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.01007501.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/75





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament
(Case T-662/15)
(2016/C 048/83)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8344 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.






—


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










—


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










—


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










—


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










—


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-660/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix 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.01007301.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/73





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament
(Case T-660/15)
(2016/C 048/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kristof Clerix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8327 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 F-140/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, survivor's benefit








C_2016111EN.01004302.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/43





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-140/15)
(2016/C 111/53)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision amending the amount of the survivor’s pension granted to the applicant and of the orphans’ pensions granted to the applicant’s three children.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul amendment decision No 3 of the Head of Unit PMO.4 of the European Commission setting out new amounts of the survivor’s pension granted to the complainant and of the orphans’ pensions granted to the complainant’s three children, communicated to the applicant on 6 February 2015, as supplemented by the grounds for the decision rejecting the complaint of the appointing authority of 3 August 2015;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.