do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-663/15: 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.01007601.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/76





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
(Case T-663/15)
(2016/C 048/84)
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)8360 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).
Notification of the Austrian Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Electricity Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity regarding the designation of Austrian Power Grid (APG), Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (VÜN) and Eneco Valcanale S.r.l. as transmission system operators in Austria
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Austria
Subjects: Austria, domestic market, electricity supply, private sector, public contract, transport network








C_2015376EN.01001201.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/12





Notification of the Austrian Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Electricity Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity regarding the designation of Austrian Power Grid (APG), Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (VÜN) and Eneco Valcanale S.r.l. as transmission system operators in Austria
(2015/C 376/07)
Following the Austrian regulatory authority's final decision of:






1.


12 March 2012, PA 947/12 and 19 March 2012, PA 1021/12 regarding the certification of Austrian Power Grid (APG) as Independent transmission operator (ITO);










2.


1 June 2012, PA 2284/12 regarding the certification of Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (VÜN) as Ownership Unbundled Transmission System Operator;










3.


22 April 2015, PA 911/15 regarding the certification of Eneco Valcanale S.r.l. as Independent transmission operator (ITO);




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





Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy




Department of Energy and Mining




Division Energy - Legal Affairs




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




Tel. +43 171100-3011




Internet: www.bmwfw.gv.at
Decision
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Secretariat-General of the European Parliament
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, competition (EU), recruitment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015420EN.01000101.xml










16.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 420/1





DECISION
(2015/C 420/01)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (2) and most recently by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (3), in particular Article 30 of those Staff Regulations,










—


Having regard to the Bureau Decision of 13 January 2014 on the delegation of the powers of the appointing authority and of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment,










—


Having regard to the expiry date of 31 December 2015 set for the following European Parliament reserve lists:






—


AD/1/12, PE/96/S, PE/106/S, PE/110/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/154/S, AST/4/11 and AST/5/11,














—


Having regard to the opinion of the Joint Committee issued at its meeting of 28 October 2015,




HAS DECIDED:
Article 1
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:






 


AD/1/12, PE/106/S, PE/124/S, AST/4/11 and AST/5/11




shall be extended until 31 December 2016.
Article 2
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:






 


PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S and PE/154/S




shall not be extended.

Done at Luxembourg, 13 November 2015.

Klaus WELLE

Secretary-General





(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 15.
Case T-658/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey 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.01007101.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/71





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey v Parliament
(Case T-658/15)
(2016/C 048/79)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marcos García Rey (Madrid, Spain) (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)8661 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-647/15: 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.01006101.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/61





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament
(Case T-647/15)
(2016/C 048/69)
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)8554 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-644/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter 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.01005801.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/58





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament
(Case T-644/15)
(2016/C 048/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delphine Reuter (Brussels, Belgium) (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)8627 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).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2045 of 13 November 2015 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Jāņu siers (TSG))
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Latvia, designation of origin, fresh cheese, labelling, product designation








L_2015300EN.01000501.xml










17.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 300/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/2045
of 13 November 2015
         
entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Jāņu siers (TSG))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Latvia's application to register the name ‘Jāņu siers’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Jāņu siers’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Jāņu siers’ (TSG) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 November 2015.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 204, 20.6.2015, p. 20.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-640/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan 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.01005401.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/54





Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament
(Case T-640/15)
(2016/C 048/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tina Kristan (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)8656 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 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).
Corrigendum to Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013)
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, environmental standard, harmonisation of standards, marketing standard, pleasure craft, product design, safety standard, technical specification








L_2015297EN.01000902.xml










13.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 297/9







Corrigendum to Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 354 of 28 December 2013
)


On page 94, recital 41, first sentence:
for:

               ‘… in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union … to amend points 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 as well as Section 3 of Part B and Section 3 of Part C of Annex I, and Annexes V, VII and IX.’,
read:

               ‘… in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union … to amend points 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of Section 2 as well as Section 3 of Part B and Section 3 of Part C of Annex I, and Annexes V, VII and IX.’;
on page 111, Article 47, point (a)(i):
for:







‘(i)


points 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 as well as Section 3 of Part B and Section 3 of Part C of Annex I;’,





read:







‘(i)


points 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of Section 2 as well as Section 3 of Part B and Section 3 of Part C of Annex I;’;





on page 119, Annex I, Part B, Section 1, point 1.1, point (b):
for:







‘(b)


engine type, engine family, if applicable;’,





read:







‘(b)


engine type and, if applicable, engine family;’.