do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-663/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
Date: 2015-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, access to the courts, administrative procedure, environmental impact, environmental protection, right to justice, water resources








C_2016111EN.01000302.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
(Case C-663/15)
(2016/C 111/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Umweltverband WWF Österreich

Respondent authority: Landeshauptmann von Tirol

Intervener: Ötztaler Wasserkraft GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (‘the Water Framework Directive’) or the Water Framework Directive as a whole confer on an environmental organisation, in a procedure which is not subject to an environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92/EU 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’), rights for the protection of which it has access to administrative or judicial procedures under Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2015 (‘the Aarhus Convention’)?
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Is it necessary under the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to be able to assert those rights at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authority or is the possibility of being granted judicial protection against the decision of the administrative authority sufficient?










3.


Is it permissible for national procedural law (Paragraph 42 of the AVG) to require the environmental organisation — like other parties — to raise its objections not only in an appeal to the Verwaltungsgericht, but in good time at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authorities, failing which it loses its status as a party and is also no longer able to bring an appeal at the Verwaltungsgericht?






(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).
Case T-727/15: Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission
Date: 2015-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU environmental policy, access to EU information, access to information, data protection, disclosure of information, environmental law, provision of documents








C_2016059EN.01004101.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/41





Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission
(Case T-727/15)
(2016/C 059/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the decision of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, dated 19 August 2015, reference number Ref GestDem No 2015/4284, by which a request for access to documents has been refused and the decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the European Commission dated 15 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015)4311297, by which a confirmatory application has been declined, null and void; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that the contested decisions are unlawful because they are contrary to: (i) Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 255 TEC); (ii) Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); (iii) Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2); and (iv) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) in conjunction with the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (2005/370/EC) (3)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 2001, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 2006, p. 13).

(3)  OJ L 124, 2005, p. 1.
Case C-672/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Procureur de la République v Noria Distribution SARL
Date: 2015-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, dietary product, food inspection, food supplement, foodstuff, free movement of goods, human nutrition, labelling, marketing standard








C_2016090EN.01000801.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Procureur de la République v Noria Distribution SARL
(Case C-672/15)
(2016/C 090/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan

Parties to the main proceedings


Prosecutor: Procureur de la République

Defendant: Noria Distribution SARL

Questions referred







1.


Do Directive 2002/46/EC (1) and Community principles of free movement of goods and of mutual recognition preclude the laying down of national legislation such as the order of 9 May 2006 which refuses any mutual recognition procedure so far as concerns food supplements based on vitamins and minerals from another Member State by excluding the application of a streamlined procedure in respect of products lawfully marketed in another Member State that are based on nutrients [whose values exceed the limits set] by the order of 9 May 2006?










2.


Does Directive 2002/46, in particular in Article 5, as well as the principles resulting from Community case-law on the provisions relating to the free movement of goods, permit the maximum daily doses of vitamins and minerals to be set in proportion to the recommended daily allowances by adopting a value equal to three times the recommended daily allowances for nutrients presenting the least risk, a value equal to the recommended daily allowances for nutrients presenting a risk of the upper safe level being exceeded and a value below the recommended daily allowances or even zero for nutrients involving the most risk?










3.


Does Directive 2002/46, as well as the principles resulting from Community case-law on the provisions relating to the free movement of goods, permit the doses to be set [in the light of] solely national scientific opinions even though recent international scientific opinions [conclude in favour of] higher doses in identical conditions of use?






(1)  Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51).
Case C-669/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
Date: 2015-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, decree, legality








C_2016078EN.01000501.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
(Case C-669/15)
(2016/C 078/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

Respondents: Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Question referred

Are the Orders of 10 July 2006 and 12 January 2010, adopted pursuant to Decree 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, which were themselves adopted pursuant to Law 2000-108 of 10 February 2000, contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) in so far as they may constitute State aid which, since it was not notified to the Commission beforehand in accordance with Article 108(3) of that Treaty, would affect the legality of those orders?