do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines: acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by all Member States (pursuant to Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, airline, airport, carriage of passengers, control of State aid








C_2016201EN.01000101.xml










7.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/1





Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines: acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by all Member States
(pursuant to Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (1))
(2016/C 201/01)
In paragraph 169 of the Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines (2), the Commission proposed that Member States, where necessary, amend their existing schemes in order to bring them into line with those guidelines by 12 months at the latest after 4 April 2014. In paragraph 170 of the same guidelines, Member States were invited to give their explicit unconditional agreement to those guidelines within two months following 4 April 2014.
Pursuant to Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission recorded the unconditional and explicit agreement to the appropriate measures by all Member States.


(1)  OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.

(2)  OJ C 99, 4.4.2014, p. 3.
Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) — Establishment of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19))
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: The Member States
Subjects: France, Luxembourg, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, local authority, regional authority, regional cooperation, regional development








C_2016201EN.01000601.xml










7.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/6





Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2)
Establishment of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
(Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19))
(2016/C 201/06)
I.1.   Name, address and contact point


Registered name: GECT — Autorité de gestion Programme INTERREG V A Grande Région

Registered office: 





c/o Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure — Spatial Planning Department




4, Place de l’Europe, 1499 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG





Contact point: Christiane Fortuin Tel. +352 24786915

Email: Christiane.Fortuin@mat.etat.lu
I.2.   Duration of the grouping:


Duration of the grouping: indefinite period

Date of registration: 

Date of publication: 
II.   OBJECTIVES

The objective of the grouping is to act as the managing authority for the cross-border cooperation programme INTERREG V A Greater Region, in accordance with Article 125 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013.
III.   ADDITIONAL DETAILS CONCERNING THE NAME OF THE GROUPING

Name in English: N/A

IV.   MEMBERS

IV.1.   Total number of members in the grouping: 2
IV.2.   Nationalities of the members of the grouping: France and Luxembourg
IV.3.   Member information


Official name: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by the Minister for sustainable development and infrastructure

Postal address: 

Type of member: Member State

Official name: Conseil régional de Lorraine (Lorraine Regional Council)

Postal address: 

Type of member: regional authority.
Case C-63/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 12 — Issue of residence documents or visas — Article 27 — Remedies — Extent of judicial scrutiny)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, foreign national, residence permit, right of asylum








C_2016296EN.01001201.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/12





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-63/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 12 - Issue of residence documents or visas - Article 27 - Remedies - Extent of judicial scrutiny))
(2016/C 296/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an asylum seeker is entitled to plead, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in Chapter III of the regulation, in particular the criterion relating to the grant of a visa set out in Article 12 of the regulation.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7987 — Towerbrook Capital Partners/Infopro Digital) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information service, merger control, publishing








C_2016201EN.01000102.xml










7.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7987 — Towerbrook Capital Partners/Infopro Digital)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 201/02)
On 13 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.










—


In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7987. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case F-108/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2016 — Verile v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme into the European Union pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Action — Annulment — Appeal — Reclassification of claim for annulment of the proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Interpretation of the claim for annulment as a claim seeking annulment of the decision recognising additional pensionable years following the transfer of pension rights — Rejection of the claim — Judgment on appeal which has acquired the force of res judicata — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016260EN.01005201.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/52





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2016 — Verile v Commission
(Case F-108/12) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme into the European Union pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Action - Annulment - Appeal - Reclassification of claim for annulment of the proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Interpretation of the claim for annulment as a claim seeking annulment of the decision recognising additional pensionable years following the transfer of pension rights - Rejection of the claim - Judgment on appeal which has acquired the force of res judicata - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 260/64)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) (represented by: initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, É. Marchal, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and finally by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and finally by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision regarding the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-108/12, Verile v Commission.










2.


Mr Marco Verile and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012, p. 34.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7956 — Johnson Controls/Tyco International) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control








C_2016201EN.01000201.xml










7.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7956 — Johnson Controls/Tyco International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 201/03)
On 1 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7956. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 June 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’) (13954/2015 — C8-0112/2016 — 2015/0249(NLE))
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Committee on International Trade, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: UN regional commission, agreement (EU), approval, harmonisation of standards, motor vehicle, ratification of an agreement, revision of an agreement, technical rule, vehicle parts








C_2018086EN.01014801.xml










6.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/148





P8_TA(2016)0239
Uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles: UNECE agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 June 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’) (13954/2015 — C8-0112/2016 — 2015/0249(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 086/22)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (13954/2015),










—


having regard to the Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’) (13954/2015),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0112/2016),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0185/2016),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/984 of 7 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Krupnioki śląskie (PGI))
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lower Silesia province, Opole province, Poland, Silesia province, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2016162EN.01000301.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 162/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/984
of 7 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Krupnioki śląskie (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Poland's application to register the name ‘Krupnioki śląskie’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Krupnioki śląskie’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Krupnioki śląskie’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 7 June 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 67, 20.2.2016, p. 17.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-322/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, constitutional court, constitutional law, free movement of capital, freedom of trade, freedom to provide services, gaming, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, single market








C_2016343EN.01002401.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
(Case C-322/16)
(2016/C 343/37)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Global Starnet Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

Questions referred









1.


May Article 267(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance is not unconditionally obliged to refer a question on the interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling if, in the course of the proceedings in question, the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) assessed the constitutional lawfulness of the national rules, in essence on the basis of the regulatory parameters which the Court of Justice is being asked to interpret, even though they are formally different in that they derive from provisions of the Constitution rather than from provisions of the European Treaties?












2.


In the alternative, in the event that the Court answers the question on the interpretation of Article 267(3) TFEU to the effect that reference for a preliminary ruling is compulsory: do the provisions and principles set out in Article 26 TFEU (The internal market), Article 49 TFEU (Right of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (Freedom to provide services), Article 63 TFEU (Free movement of capital) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Freedom to conduct a business) and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (which ‘is among the fundamental principles of the European Union’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 14 March 2013 in Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle, C-545/11) preclude the adoption and application of national regulations (Article 1(78)(b), subsections 4, 8, 9, 17, 23 and 25, of Law No 220/2010) which lay down new requirements and obligations for concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, including existing concession holders, by means of an addendum to the existing agreement (and without any period for gradual compliance)?
Case C-47/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Police custody — National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry — Situation of ‘transit’ — Multilateral readmission arrangement)
Date: 2016-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Schengen Agreement, area of freedom, security and justice, foreign national, illegal migration, national law, return migration, transit








C_2016296EN.01001101.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/11





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai
(Case C-47/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Police custody - National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry - Situation of ‘transit’ - Multilateral readmission arrangement))
(2016/C 296/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sélina Affum

Respondents: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) and Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national is staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and therefore falls within the scope of that directive when, without fulfilling the conditions for entry, stay or residence, he passes in transit through that Member State as a passenger on a bus from another Member State forming part of the Schengen area and bound for a third Member State outside that area.










2.


Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a third country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed to be imprisoned merely on account of illegal entry across an internal border, resulting in an illegal stay.
That interpretation also applies where the national concerned may be taken back by another Member State pursuant to an agreement or arrangement within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the directive.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.