do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-659/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter 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.01007201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/72





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament
(Case T-659/15)
(2016/C 048/80)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mark Lee Hunter (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8684 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 C-596/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, food safety, foodstuff, infringement of EU law, labelling, trade information








C_2016016EN.01002401.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/24





Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission
(Case C-596/15 P)
(2016/C 016/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Bionorica SE (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


conduct an oral hearing;










—


set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:






—


Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.










—


Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2200 of 13 November 2015 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (EUMM Georgia/1/2015)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Georgia, fact-finding mission, the EU's international role








L_2015313EN.01004001.xml










28.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 313/40








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2015/2200
of 13 November 2015
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (EUMM Georgia/1/2015)


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 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 16 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/915/CFSP (2), extending the mandate of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2016.












(3)


On 19 December 2014, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 (3), appointing Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2015 to 14 December 2016,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 14 December 2016.


Article 2
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 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/915/CFSP of 16 December 2014 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 56).

(3)  Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 of 19 December 2014 on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (OJ L 369, 24.12.2014, p. 78).
Case T-645/15: Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku 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.01005901.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/59





Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament
(Case T-645/15)
(2016/C 048/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8682 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-651/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov 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.01006501.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/65





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament
(Case T-651/15)
(2016/C 048/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Atanas Tchobanov (Le Plessis Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8659 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).
Case T-654/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku 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.01006701.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/67





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament
(Case T-654/15)
(2016/C 048/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision A(2015)8681 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 C-597/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, foodstuff, human nutrition, infringement of EU law, labelling, trade information








C_2016016EN.01002501.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/25





Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
(Case C-597/15 P)
(2016/C 016/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


conduct an oral hearing;










—


set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:






—


Procedural errors: the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.










—


Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. Lastly, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, the appellant is directly and adversely affected by the Commission’s continuing failure to act.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.
Case T-648/15: 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, provision of documents








C_2016048EN.01006201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/62





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
(Case T-648/15)
(2016/C 048/70)
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)8361 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).