do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8104 — HNA Group/Gategroup) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, catering industry, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services








C_2016385EN.01000101.xml










19.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8104 — HNA Group/Gategroup)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 385/01)
On 20 September 2016, 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 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 32016M8104. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2016385EN.01003401.xml










19.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/34





Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 385/11)






Member State


Greece




Concerned Routes


Thessaloniki – Corfu
Thessaloniki – Skyros
Alexandroupolis – Sitia
Aktio – Sitia
Corfu – Aktion – Kefalοnia – Zakinthos
Limnos – Mitilini – Chios – Samos – Rhodes
Rhodes – Kos – Kalymnos – Leros – Astypalea




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


From 1 October 2016




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge







Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority




Directorate-General for Air Transport




Air Transport and International Affairs Division




Section II




Vas. Georgiou 1




16604 Athens




GREECE




Tel. +30 2108916149 or 2108916121




Fax +30 2108947132




Internet: www.hcaa.gr
Case T-671/15: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2016 — E-Control v ACER (Action for annulment — Energy — Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Opinion of ACER — National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Central-East Europe region — Compatibility — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy grid, energy transport, trans-European network








C_2016462EN.01002302.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/23





Order of the General Court of 19 October 2016 — E-Control v ACER
(Case T-671/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Energy - Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Opinion of ACER - National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity - Central-East Europe region - Compatibility - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 462/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: E. Tremmel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Opinion No 09/2015 of ACER of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and the Guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A.










3.


Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), including those relating to the interim proceedings.










4.


The Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8135 — Cerberus/GE Money Bank/SOREFI/SOMAFI-SOGUAFI/GE Financement Pacifique) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2016385EN.01000202.xml










19.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8135 — Cerberus/GE Money Bank/SOREFI/SOMAFI-SOGUAFI/GE Financement Pacifique)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 385/04)
On 1 September 2016, 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 32016M8135. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-734/16: Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU office or agency, retirement conditions, seniority, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016462EN.01003602.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/36





Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission
(Case T-734/16)
(2016/C 462/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas.






1.


First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.










2.


Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8197 — Cinven/Old Mutual Wealth Italy) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control








C_2016385EN.01000302.xml










19.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8197 — Cinven/Old Mutual Wealth Italy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 385/06)
On 10 October 2016, 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 English 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 32016M8197. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-582/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Article 7(f) — Definition of ‘personal data’ — Internet protocol addresses — Storage of data by an online media services provider — National legislation not permitting the legitimate interest pursued by the controller to be taken into account)
Date: 2016-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet access provider, Internet address, Internet site, data protection, data-processing law, information storage, information storage and retrieval, personal data








C_2016475EN.01000301.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/3





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-582/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Article 7(f) - Definition of ‘personal data’ - Internet protocol addresses - Storage of data by an online media services provider - National legislation not permitting the legitimate interest pursued by the controller to be taken into account))
(2016/C 475/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Patrick Breyer

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that a dynamic IP address registered by an online media services provider when a person accesses a website that the provider makes accessible to the public constitutes personal data within the meaning of that provision, in relation to that provider, where the latter has the legal means which enable it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider has about that person.










2.


Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, pursuant to which an online media services provider may collect and use personal data relating to a user of those services, without his consent, only in so far as that the collection and use of that data are necessary to facilitate and charge for the specific use of those services by that user, even though the objective aiming to ensure the general operability of those services may justify the use of those data after a consultation period of those websites.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.