do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-566/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: co-determination, equal treatment, free movement of workers, right to stand for election, right to vote, staff








C_2016090EN.01000301.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG
(Case C-566/15)
(2016/C 090/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konrad Erzberger

Defendant: TUI AG

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 18 TFEU (non-discrimination) and Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers) for a Member State to grant the right to vote and stand as a candidate for the employees’ representatives in the supervisory body of a company only to those workers who are employed in establishments of the company or in affiliated companies within the domestic territory?
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1995 of 3 November 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Kattegat area by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Sweden, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015291EN.01000101.xml










7.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 291/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/1995
of 3 November 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Kattegat area by vessels flying the flag of Sweden


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, 3 November 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


54/TQ104




Member State


Sweden




Stock


COD/03AS.




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


Kattegat




Closing date


5.10.2015
Case T-617/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, provision of services, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2016016EN.01004301.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/43





Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)
(Case T-617/15)
(2016/C 016/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘eSMOKINGWORLD’ — Application for registration No 12 581 741

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2015 in Case R 3227/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-616/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Development Fund, claim, financial regulation, indemnification, interest, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2016027EN.01006701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/67





Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission
(Case T-616/15)
(2016/C 027/85)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the set-off decisions of the European Commission contained in its letters of 25 August, 27 August, 7 September, 16 September and 23 September 2015 by which it recovered the sum of EUR 624 388,73;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 624 388,73 plus late payment interest on that sum, to be determined on the basis of the European Central Bank reference rate plus two percentage points;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage, set at the symbolic amount of EUR 1;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decisions have no valid legal basis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, in so far as the sum of EUR 607 096,08 plus interest was deducted from the applicant’s assets and increased the wealth of the Commission without any legal basis for that enrichment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 42, 44, 45 and 47 of the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund, in so far as the Commission did not exercise the discretion conferred on it by those provisions, and infringement of the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, in so far as the Commission disregarded Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment.
Opinion 2/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice, Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: EU competence, Singapore, competence of the Member States, free-trade agreement, interpretation of the law, ratification of an agreement, signature of an agreement








C_2015363EN.01001802.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/18





Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
(Opinion 2/15)
(2015/C 363/22)
Language of procedure: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, M. Kocjan, R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Does the Union have the requisite competence to sign and conclude alone the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore? More specifically:






—


Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s exclusive competence?










—


Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s shared competence? and










—


Is there any provision of the agreement that falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States?
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015363EN.01000101.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 363/01)

Last publication


OJ C 354, 26.10.2015


Past publications


OJ C 346, 19.10.2015


OJ C 337, 12.10.2015


OJ C 328, 5.10.2015


OJ C 320, 28.9.2015


OJ C 311, 21.9.2015


OJ C 302, 14.9.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case F-139/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, incapacity for work, indemnification, staff regulations (EU), worker with disabilities








C_2016007EN.01003802.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/38





Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
(Case F-139/15)
(2016/C 007/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions by which it refused to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin and claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 2 December 2014, served on 6 January 2015, in so far as it accepts the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee and so refuses to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;










—


Annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 24 July 2015, served on 27 July 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim;










—


Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;










—


Order the Committee of the Regions to pay all the costs.
Case C-559/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)
Date: 2015-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, insurance company, insurance contract, supervisory body








C_2016038EN.01002202.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)
(Case C-559/15)
(2016/C 038/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Onix Asigurari SA

Respondent: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)

Question referred

Does Community law, in particular Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49/EEC, (1) Commission Interpretative Communication 2000/C/43/03, paragraph 5, and the Community principle of home country control preclude an interpretative approach (such as that applied to Article 193(4) of the Codice delle Assicurazioni private, the Private Insurance Code) approved by Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, endorsed by this Court) in accordance with which the supervisory authority of a State hosting an insurance operator under the freedom to provide services may, in cases of urgency and for the protection of the interests of insured persons and of persons entitled to insurance benefits, issue injunctions specifically prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts within the territory of the host State, on the grounds of the identified failure, whether pre-existing or supervening, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, in particular the requirement of good repute?


(1)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).