do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-153/23: Action brought on 21 March 2023 — WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, abuse of power, administrative sanction, data protection, data-processing law, personal data, right to justice, social media








C_2023164EN.01005001.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/50






Action brought on 21 March 2023 — WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board
(Case T-153/23)
(2023/C 164/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WhatsApp Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Killick, G. Forwood, I. Sarmas, H. Gafsen, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan, D. Breatnach, Solicitors, D. McGrath, SC, E. Egan McGrath, B. Kennedy, SC, C. Geoghegan, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Order the requested measures of organisation of procedure;










—


Annul Binding Decision 5/2022 of the EDPB on the dispute submitted by the DPC regarding WhatsApp Ireland Limited (Art. 65 GDPR) dated 5 December 2022 (Contested decision); and










—


Order the EDPB to bear WhatsApp Ireland’s costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that EDPB failed to act as an impartial body, in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, subject to confirmation through measures of organisation of procedure, the Contested Decision was vitiated by procedural irregularities in its adoption.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence by considering matters that were outside the scope of the Complaint.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB erred by instructing the Irish Data Protection Commission to find that the Applicant could not rely on contractual necessity under Article 6(1)(b) GDPR.










5.


Fifth plea in law alleging that the EDPB erred in law in instructing the Irish Data Protection Commission to find an infringement of the principle of fairness, enshrined in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR.










6.


Sixth plea in law alleging that the EDPB erred in law and exceeded its competence by instructing the Irish Data Protection Commission to further investigate all of WhatsApp Ireland’s data processing to determine whether it includes special categories of data pursuant to Article 9 GDPR.










7.


Seventh plea in law alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence and erred in law in instructing the Irish Data Protection Commission to impose an administrative fine.
Case C-180/23: Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, public authorities, rail transport, transport company, transport infrastructure








C_2023173EN.01002601.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/26






Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-180/23)
(2023/C 173/36)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and P. Messina, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to conclude and publish the contractual agreement between the Greek authorities and OSE, the Greek infrastructure manager, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34, (1) read in conjunction with Annex V thereof,










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic has failed to conclude the agreement provided for by Article 30 of Directive 2012/34 on railway infrastructure with the infrastructure manager (OSE). However, the agreement should have been concluded before 16 June 2015 (Article 64 of the directive) and should have included all the information set out in Annex V.


(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).