do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1883 of 15 October 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015276EN.01002601.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 276/26








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/1883
of 15 October 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium


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) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.












(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 2015.












(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 2015 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, 15 October 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






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

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 of 19 January 2015 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, amending Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 779/2014 (OJ L 22, 28.1.2015, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


47/TQ104




Member State


Belgium




Stock


SRX/89-C.




Species


Skates and rays (Rajiformes)




Zone


Union waters of VIII and IX




Closing date


19.9.2015
Case C-539/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, collective agreement, equal pay, pay scale, promotion








C_2016027EN.01000801.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Case C-539/15)
(2016/C 027/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daniel Bowman

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1), and also having regard to Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that






a)


a provision in a collective agreement which provides for a longer period for incremental advancement for employment at the start of a career, thereby making it more difficult to advance to the next salary step, constitutes an indirect difference in treatment based on age,










b)


and, if such is the case, that such a rule is appropriate and necessary in the light of the limited professional experience at the start of a career?










(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case C-251/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Quality of diesel fuels — National technical specification imposing additional quality requirements compared to EU law)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, approximation of laws, diesel fuel, environmental protection, environmental standard, official language, public health, quality standard








C_2015406EN.01000801.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
(Case C-251/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Quality of diesel fuels - National technical specification imposing additional quality requirements compared to EU law))
(2015/C 406/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: György Balázs

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 4(1) and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from laying down in its national law quality requirements that are additional to the ones contained in that directive for the marketing of diesel fuels, such as that relating to the flash point at issue in the main proceedings, since it does not constitute a technical specification of diesel fuels relating to the protection of health and the environment for the purposes of that directive.










2.


Article 1(6) and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from making a national standard such as Hungarian standard MSZ EN 590:2009 at issue in the main proceedings mandatory.










3.


Article 1(6) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/96, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national standard within the meaning of that provision to be made available in the official language of the Member State concerned.






(1)  
            OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-537/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, consumer protection, credit, enforcement of ruling, unfair terms of contract








C_2016191EN.01000302.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński
(Case C-537/15)
(2016/C 191/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Euro Bank SA

Defendant: Marek Łopaciński

Questions referred

By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 it was decided that there was no need to proceed to judgment in the case.
Case C-538/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: lawyer, minimum pay, remuneration of work, wage determination








C_2015429EN.01001201.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Spain) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser, S.A.
(Case C-538/15)
(2015/C 429/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francesc de Bolós Pi

Defendant: Urbaser, S.A.

Questions referred







1)


Is Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 4(3) TEU, compatible with rules laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is impossible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from those minima even in exceptional circumstances?










2)


For the purpose of applying the abovementioned statutory scale without applying the minimum levels laid down therein: may the fact that the amount of fees payable under the scale is disproportionate to the work actually done be regarded as exceptional circumstances?










3)


Is Article 56 TFEU compatible with Royal Decree 1373/2006?










4)


Does Royal Decree 1373/2006 meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality referred to in Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC? (1)











5)


Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights include the right to defend oneself properly in a situation in which the figure at which the fees of a procurador are set is disproportionately high and does not correspond to the work actually carried out?






(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
Case C-306/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 27(1)(d) — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty — Ethyl alcohol — Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: ethanol, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax on consumption








C_2015406EN.01000902.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/9






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD
(Case C-306/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol - Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines))
(2015/C 406/09)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
         

Defendant: Biovet AD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt laid down in that provision applies to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.


(1)  
            OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015340EN.01000301.xml










15.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 October 2015
(2015/C 340/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1410




JPY


Japanese yen


136,48




DKK


Danish krone


7,4612




GBP


Pound sterling


0,74180




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2716




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0901




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2400




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,113




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,04




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2378




RON


Romanian leu


4,4145




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3500




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5722




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4816




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8429




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6938




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5815




KRW


South Korean won


1 308,96




ZAR


South African rand


15,3094




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2435




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6280




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 534,04




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8055




PHP


Philippine peso


52,447




RUB


Russian rouble


71,9750




THB


Thai baht


40,533




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4198




MXN


Mexican peso


18,8927




INR


Indian rupee


74,1465






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-113/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — DI v EASO (Civil Service — EASO staff — Contractual staff — Probationary period — Dismissed as manifestly unsuitable — Action for annulment — Lack of concordance between the application and the claim — Manifest inadmissibility — Action for damages)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, contract staff, damages, dismissal, probationary period, termination of a contract, work contract








C_2015389EN.01006601.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/66





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — DI v EASO
(Case F-113/13)
((Civil Service - EASO staff - Contractual staff - Probationary period - Dismissed as manifestly unsuitable - Action for annulment - Lack of concordance between the application and the claim - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages))
(2015/C 389/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: L. Cerdán Ortiz-Quintana, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to terminate the applicant’s employment contract after the probationary period, which was extended by three months.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


DI shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Asylum Support Office.
Case T-642/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Store (cushe) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark cushe — Earlier national word mark SHE and figurative mark she — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015398EN.01003701.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/37





Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Store (cushe)
(Case T-642/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark cushe - Earlier national word mark SHE and figurative mark she - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 398/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wolverine International, LP (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Plesser and R. Heine, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: BH Store BV (Curaçao, Curaçao, Autonomous Territory of the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2013 (Case R 1269/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between BH Store BV and Wolverine International, LP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wolverine International, LP to pay the costs, apart from those incurred by BH Store BV before the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);










3.


Rejects the claim of BH Store relating to the costs it incurred before the Cancellation Division.






(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
Case T-482/15 R: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Call for tenders — Provision of furniture — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case not made out)
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, furniture industry, invitation to tender, supplies contract








C_2015398EN.01005601.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/56





Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
(Case T-482/15 R)
((Interim measures - Public procurement - Call for tenders - Provision of furniture - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case not made out))
(2015/C 398/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ahrend Furniture (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: initially, A. Lepièce, V. Dor and S. Engelen, then A. Lepièce, V. Dor, S. Engelen and F. Caillol, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, agents)

Re:

Primarily, an application for a suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision by which that institution awarded Lot No 1 of the call for tenders OIB.DR.2/PO/2014/055/622 — ‘Provision of furniture’ to another tenderer and, in the alternative, an application seeking an order for the production of documents concerning the financial analysis of the tenders and for suspension of operation of that decision until the expiry of a new standstill period of ten days from the date on which those documents are sent.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 26 August 2015 delivered in Case T-482/15 R is set aside.










3.


Costs are reserved.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1880 of 15 October 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for sole in area VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2015-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015276EN.01002001.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 276/20








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/1880
of 15 October 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for sole in area VIIIa and VIIIb by vessels flying the flag of Belgium


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) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.












(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 2015.












(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 2015 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, 15 October 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






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

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 of 19 January 2015 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, amending Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 779/2014 (OJ L 22, 28.1.2015, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


44/TQ104




Member State


Belgium




Stock


SOL/8AB.




Species


Common sole (Solea solea)




Zone


VIIIa and VIIIb




Closing date


19.9.2015