do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2270 of 3 December 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of France
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, France, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015322EN.01001701.xml










8.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 322/17








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/2270
of 3 December 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of France


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 December 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


65/TQ104




Member State


France




Stock


PLE/7HJK.




Species


Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)




Zone


VIIh, VIIj and VIIk




Closing date


6.11.2015
Case C-645/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2015 — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, international road transport, road network, trans-European network








C_2016090EN.01000502.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2015 — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-645/15)
(2016/C 090/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred







1.


Should Point 7(c) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the ‘EIA Directive’) be interpreted as covering also the widening of existing roads with four or more lanes?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is Point 7(c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive more specific than Point 7(b) of Annex I to that directive and does it for that reason take priority in application?










3.


If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative:
Does the term ‘express road’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose that the road section in question is a main international traffic artery within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?










4.


If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are answered in the negative:
Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive apply to road-widening under which the existing route of the road does not undergo any significant alteration?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose a minimum length with regard to the road section in question? If so, must this involve a continuous section of road? If so, is the minimum length more than a continuous length of 2,6 kilometres or, where the lengths of multiple separate sections of road are to be added together, more than a total of 4,4 kilometres?










6.


If Question 5 is answered in the negative:
Does the second reference in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive (construction of express roads) apply to a road-widening measure within a built-up area within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.
Case C-338/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme — Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers — Conditions)
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customers, damages, indemnification, remuneration of work, sales representative, termination of employment








C_2016038EN.01000701.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA
(Case C-338/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme - Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers - Conditions))
(2016/C 038/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Quenon K. SPRL

Respondents: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 17(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that a commercial agent is entitled, on termination of the agency contract, both to an indemnity for customers limited to a maximum of one year’s remuneration and, if that indemnity does not cover all of the loss actually incurred, to the award of additional damages, provided that such legislation does not result in the agent being compensated twice for the loss of commission following termination of the contract.










2.


Article 17(2)(c) of Directive 86/653/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not make the award of damages conditional on demonstration of the existence of a fault attributable to the principal which caused the alleged harm, but does require the alleged harm to be distinct from that compensated for by the indemnity for customers.






(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
Case T-105/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — TrekStor v OHIM (iDrive) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iDrive — Prior German word mark IDRIVE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004301.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/43





Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — TrekStor v OHIM (iDrive)
(Case T-105/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iDrive - Prior German word mark IDRIVE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: M. Alber and O. Spieker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Scanlab AG (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 2330/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Scanlab AG and TrekStor Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the request to stay the proceedings lodged by TrekStor Ltd;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders TrekStor Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Case T-710/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003202.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/32





Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-710/15)
(2016/C 059/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that it has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to its reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2269 of 3 December 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in area VIId by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, EU waters, English Channel, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015322EN.01001501.xml










8.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 322/15








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/2269
of 3 December 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in area VIId 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, 3 December 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


63/TQ104




Member State


Belgium




Stock


COD/07D.




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


VIId




Closing date


1.11.2015
Case T-647/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALSAW) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark DUALSAW — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01005101.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/51





Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALSAW)
(Case T-647/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark DUALSAW - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myerlake Circle Clearwater, Florida, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by V. Melgar, and subsequently by H. O’Neill and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2014 (Case R 397/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign DUALSAW as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Infusion Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
Case T-707/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Souruh v Council
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003002.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/30





Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-707/15)
(2016/C 059/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
Case T-709/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003201.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/32





Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-709/15)
(2016/C 059/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that it has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to its reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
Case T-708/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council
Date: 2015-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership, trade restriction








C_2016059EN.01003101.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/31





Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council
(Case T-708/15)
(2016/C 059/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria), and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three principal pleas and a subsidiary plea, alleging that they have suffered harm for which the Council of the European Union is liable.






1.


First plea, alleging the unlawfulness of the measures adopted by the Council, in that the Council has failed to fulfil its duty of care and diligence by basing its decisions to include the applicants on vague and imprecise grounds, notwithstanding the case-law requiring it to justify precisely its decisions, and by overlooking its obligation to have a hearing prior to maintaining the applicants in the lists of sanctions. Moreover, the restrictive measures adopted against the applicants are of an unjustified and disproportionate nature and infringe their right to reputation and their right to property.










2.


Second plea, alleging the non-material harm which the applicants have suffered, in that their inclusion in the lists of sanctions has undermined their reputation.










3.


Third plea, alleging material harm suffered by the applicants because of their inclusion in the lists of persons and entities covered by restrictive measures, in that by that fact they have lost many contracts and many sources of revenue.










4.


Fourth plea, put forward in the alternative, alleging the strict liability of the European Union for the harm caused to the applicants following their inclusion in the lists of persons and entities covered by the sanctions against Syria.