do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-177/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis
Date: 2011-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, environmental impact, environmental protection, protected area








C_2011194EN.01001002.xml










2.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis
(Case C-177/11)
2011/C 194/14
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

Defendants: (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

Question referred

Does Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/ΕC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30), in providing that an environmental assessment is to be carried out for all plans and programmes ‘which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/ΕEC’, mean that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions for environmental assessment under Directive 92/43/ΕEC being met in respect of that plan and that, therefore, the provision in question of Directive 2001/42/ΕC also requires, like the above provisions of Directive 92/43/ΕEC, affirmation that the plan is likely to have a significant effect on a special area of conservation, whilst leaving the substantive assessment in that regard to the Member States? Or is Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to carry out an environmental assessment under that provision does not depend on the preconditions for carrying out an environmental assessment under Directive 92/43 being met, that is to say on the finding as to the likelihood of significant effects on a special area of conservation, and it is sufficient to find that a particular plan is connected in some way with a site envisaged in Directive 92/43, but not necessarily with a special area of conservation, in order for the obligation to carry out such an assessment to be activated?
Case T-71/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Xeda International v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2011-04-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, health risk, market approval, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, summary procedure, withdrawal from the market








C_2011152EN.01002102.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Xeda International v Commission
(Case T-71/10 R)
(Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
2011/C 152/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Application, essentially, for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case C-531/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 April 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2011-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, anti-discriminatory measure, award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2011252EN.01002804.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/28





Order of the President of the Court of 8 April 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-531/10) (1)

2011/C 252/63
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 348/2011 of 8 April 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire
Date: 2011-04-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, arms control, economic sanctions, import restriction, precious stones








L_2011097EN.01000101.xml










12.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 97/1








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 348/2011
of 8 April 2011
         
implementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.












(2)


In view of the developments in Côte d’Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the date 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, 8 April 2011.


For the Council


The President


               MARTONYI J.





(1)  
            OJ L 95, 14.4.2005, p. 1.




ANNEX

ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1







1.


SIR (Ivorian Refining Company)




2.


Autonomous Port of Abidjan




3.


Autonomous Port of San Pedro




4.


CGFCC (Coffee and Cocoa Trade Management Committee)