- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-615/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-214/11: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0615
62013CN0615
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
8.3.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 71/6
—
(Case C-615/13 P)
(2014/C 71/09)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority, European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the General Court judgment of 13 September 2013 in case T-214/11;
—order EFSA to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.
1.First ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the legal concept of ‘personal data’ as defined by Article 2 of Regulation No. 45/2001 (1).
The General Court erred in finding that the combination of names and opinions constitutes personal data. The concept of ‘personal data’ does not include opinions provided in the course of participation in a public committee where experts, whose names and other personal details are publicly available, are called on to participate due to their renowned expertise.
2.Second ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of Articles 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (2) and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001 with regard to the scope, procedure and substance of these provisions, in particular by failing to consider and balance all the interests protected by those measures.
The General Court failed to fully consider all aspects of the provisions which were found to be applicable: Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001. It failed to consider and take account of the different interests protected under both measures.
3.Third ground of appeal, alleging violation of Article 5 of the TEU by imposing a disproportionate burden of proof upon the Appellants in requiring them to show the necessity for the transfer of information and the scope of legitimate interests protected.
—
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 L 8, p. 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 L 145, p. 43
—
—