do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 962/2013 of 10 September 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in VIaS, VIIb, VIIc areas by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Netherlands, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2013268EN.01000101.xml










10.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 268/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 962/2013
of 10 September 2013
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in VIaS, VIIb, VIIc areas by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 10 September 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


35/TQ39




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock


HER/6AS7BC




Species


Herring (Clupea harengus)




Zone


VIaS, VIIb, VIIc




Date


12.8.2013
Case T-202/11: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Aerooria Aigaiou Aeroporiki and Marfin Investment Group Symmetochon v Commission
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air traffic, economic concentration, ferryboat, merger control, traveller








C_2013336EN.01002902.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/29





Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Aerooria Aigaiou Aeroporiki and Marfin Investment Group Symmetochon v Commission
(Case T-202/11) (1)

2013/C 336/63
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.
Corrigendum to Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws ( OJ L 337, 18.12.2009 )
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: Internet, disclosure of information, electronic mail, personal data, protection of privacy








L_2013241EN.01000901.xml










10.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 241/9







Corrigendum to Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 337 of 18 December 2009
)

On page 29, point (c) of Article 2(2):
for:






‘(c)


the following point shall be added:






“(h)


‘personal data breach’ means …”;’,








read:






‘(c)


the following point shall be added:






“(i)


‘personal data breach’ means …”;’.
Case C-483/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena n °2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013352EN.01000403.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena no 2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore
(Case C-483/13)
2013/C 352/07
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Unicaja Banco S.A.

Defendant: Steluta Grigore

Questions referred







1.


Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?










2.


Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?










3.


Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013261EN.01000401.xml










10.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 September 2013
2013/C 261/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3194




JPY


Japanese yen


131,30




DKK


Danish krone


7,4589




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84130




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7492




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2350




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0220




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,833




HUF


Hungarian forint


300,43




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7024




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2730




RON


Romanian leu


4,4709




TRY


Turkish lira


2,6955




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4338




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3699




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2323




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6485




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6779




KRW


South Korean won


1 430,56




ZAR


South African rand


13,2238




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0760




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5912




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 117,97




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3428




PHP


Philippine peso


58,098




RUB


Russian rouble


43,9046




THB


Thai baht


42,478




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0382




MXN


Mexican peso


17,3917




INR


Indian rupee


86,0840






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-484/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013352EN.01000501.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa
(Case C-484/13)
2013/C 352/08
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caixabank SA

Defendants: Manuel María Rueda Ledesma, Rosario Mesa Mesa

Questions referred







1.


Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?










2.


Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?










3.


Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-486/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013352EN.01000601.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
(Case C-486/13)
2013/C 352/10
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caixabank SA

Defendant: Antonio Galán Rodríguez

Questions referred







1.


Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?










2.


Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?










3.


Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-485/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v José Labella Crespo and Others
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013352EN.01000502.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v José Labella Crespo and Others
(Case C-485/13)
2013/C 352/09
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caixabank SA

Defendants: José Labella Crespo, Rosario Márquez Rodríguez, Rafael Gallardo Salvat, Manuela Márquez Rodríguez

Questions referred







1.


Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?










2.


Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?










3.


Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-483/13: Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, abuse of power, confidentiality, data protection, disclosure of information, fraud against the EU, personal data, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2013344EN.01005901.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/59





Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission
(Case T-483/13)
2013/C 344/108
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Award damages;










—


Declare that a series of OLAF’s actions and measures are legally non- existent and constitute inadmissible evidence.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by OLAF, as it was not entitled to conduct an investigation in the context of contractual relations between the Commission and a third party and acted ultra vires in the relevant investigation infringing several articles of the relevant legal framework, such as Council Regulation No 2185/96 (1) and Regulation No 1073/1999 (2).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 (3) 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, violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999, breach of the obligation to maintain confidentiality, violation of the right to private life, violation of the principle of sound administration, as OLAF and different DGs of the Commission acted unlawfully when processed personal data of the applicant and transmitted such personal data within the Commission, and third parties.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defense, as the applicant has very limited information on the facts that concern him in the context of the relevant investigation and consequently was not given the opportunity to defend himself against any eventual accusation.






(1)  Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ 1996 L 292, p. 2)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)

(3)  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 2001 L 8, p. 1)
Case C-489/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Ronny Verest, Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, basis of tax assessment, land register, real property, tax system








C_2013352EN.01000701.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Ronny Verest, Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat
(Case C-489/13)
2013/C 352/12
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ronny Verest, Gaby Gerards

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 56 of the EC Treaty preclude the taxation in one Member State, on a basis other than its local cadastral income, of immovable property situated in another Member State which is not rented out, assuming in particular in that case that the local cadastral income is determined in a similar way to the Belgian cadastral income from Belgian immovable property?
Case C-487/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna
Date: 2013-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013352EN.01000602.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna
(Case C-487/13)
2013/C 352/11
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caixabank SA

Defendants: Alberto Galán Luna and Domingo Galán Luna

Questions referred







1.


Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?










2.


Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?










3.


Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.