GC - T‑375/22 - Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


|Jurisdiction=European Union
|Jurisdiction=European Union
|Court-BG-Color=
|Court-BG-Color=background-color:#004494;
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Courtlogo=Cjeulogo.png
|Court_Abbrevation=GC
|Court_Abbrevation=GC
|Court_Original_Name=General Court
|Court_Original_Name=General Court
Line 9: Line 9:
|Court_With_Country=GC (European Union)
|Court_With_Country=GC (European Union)


|Case_Number_Name=T‑375/22
|Case_Number_Name=T‑375/22 Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament
|ECLI=ECLI:EU:T:2024:296
|ECLI=ECLI:EU:T:2024:296


Line 32: Line 32:
|EU_Law_Name_1=Aricle 9(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725
|EU_Law_Name_1=Aricle 9(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725
|EU_Law_Link_1=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/art_9/
|EU_Law_Link_1=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/art_9/
|EU_Law_Name_2=Article 4(1)(b)  
|EU_Law_Name_2=Article 4(1)(b) Regulation No 1049/2001
|EU_Law_Link_2=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/art_4/eng
|EU_Law_Link_2=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/art_4/eng
|EU_Law_Name_3=
|EU_Law_Name_3=

Latest revision as of 13:25, 19 October 2024

GC - T‑375/22 Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament
Cjeulogo.png
Court: GC (European Union)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Relevant Law:
Aricle 9(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725
Article 4(1)(b) Regulation No 1049/2001
Decided:
Published:
Parties: Luisa Izuzquiza
Arne Semsrott
Stefan Wehrmeyer
European Parliament
National Case Number/Name: T‑375/22 Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2024:296
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s): English
Original Source: Curia (in English)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The General Court ruled that the Data Protection Regulation permits sharing the travel expenses of an imprisoned Member of the European Parliament, convicted of leading a criminal organization and aggravated weapons possession.

English Summary

Facts

Three individuals requested access from the European Parliament to documents detailing the amounts paid to Mr. Ioannis Lagos, a Greek Member of the European Parliament (MEP), and his parliamentary assistants. Mr. Lagos was elected in Greece and began his term on 2 July 2019. On 7 October 2020, he was convicted by Greek courts and sentenced to 13 years and 8 months in prison, along with a fine, for charges including membership and leadership of a criminal organization and two minor offenses.

Following the waiver of his parliamentary immunity, Mr. Lagos was arrested by Belgian authorities on 27 April 2021 and extradited to Greece, where he began serving his prison sentence. Despite his conviction and imprisonment, he did not resign from his position as an MEP, nor did the Greek authorities inform the European Parliament of any withdrawal of his mandate.

On 7 December 2021, the applicants submitted a request under Regulation No 1049/2001 for access to all documents related to the allowances paid to Mr. Lagos and the expenses linked to the salaries of his accredited and local parliamentary assistants. On 4 February 2022, the European Parliament refused this request, citing the protection of personal data under Regulation No 1049/2001 and requiring the applicants to demonstrate a necessity for disclosure under Regulation 2018/1725. After the applicants filed a confirmatory application, the Parliament upheld its refusal on 8 April 2022, maintaining that access to the requested documents should be denied.

Holding

The General Court held that the European Parliament wrongly refused access to documents containing personal data about Mr. Ioannis Lagos and his parliamentary assistants concerning reimbursements of travel expenses and subsistence allowances. Under Regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725, the Court found that the applicants demonstrated the necessity of transmitting these personal data for a specific purpose in the public interest: facilitating public scrutiny over the use of public funds by an MEP convicted of serious crimes who continued to receive allowances. The Parliament failed to appropriately balance this public interest against any potential prejudice to the legitimate interests of Mr. Lagos and his assistants. The Court clarified that the protection of personal data does not override the need for transparency in exceptional circumstances, and institutions must weigh competing interests when considering exceptions to the right of access to documents.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the English original. Please refer to the English original for more details.