do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1403 of 22 August 2016 excluding ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the application of a fishery closure period in 2016
Date: 2016-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, authorised catch, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishery management, fishing controls, sea fish, sea fishing








L_2016228EN.01003001.xml










23.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 228/30








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1403
of 22 August 2016
         
excluding ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the application of a fishery closure period in 2016


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 779/97 (1), and in particular Article 29(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Provisions for setting the fisheries closure periods for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007.












(2)


Under Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007, the Commission may exclude ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 from the scope of the fisheries closure period if the amount of cod caught in ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 during the most recent reporting period was below a certain threshold.












(3)


Taking into account the reports submitted by the relevant Member States and the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 should be excluded from the scope of the said fisheries closure period in 2016.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 shall not apply to ICES Subdivisions 27 and 28.2 in 2016.


Article 2
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, 22 August 2016.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 248, 22.9.2007, p. 1.
Case C-467/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2016 — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall
Date: 2016-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, civil law, commercial law, enforcement of ruling, international convention, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, national law








C_2016428EN.01000601.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2016 — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall
(Case C-467/16)
(2016/C 428/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Question referred

Is an arbitration authority under Swiss law also covered by the term ‘court’ within the scope of Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention (1) of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the 2007 Lugano Convention’)?


(1)  2009/430/EC: Council Decision of 27 November 2008 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Declarations, OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1.
Case T-464/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission
Date: 2016-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, demotion, pay scale, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2016371EN.01002401.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/24





Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission
(Case T-464/16 P)
(2016/C 371/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HI (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds.






1.


First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.










2.


Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence.










3.


Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST.










4.


Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST.
Case T-462/16: Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2016-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, single payment scheme








C_2016392EN.01004301.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/43





Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-462/16)
(2016/C 392/57)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Decision C (2016) 3753 of 20 June 2016, notified on 21 June 2016, excluding from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, on the ground of ‘consolidation weaknesses’ it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 29 957 339,70 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which the Commission committed by acknowledging the implementation of a public development programme to adjust entitlements in accordance with Article 41(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), but then proceeding, a posteriori, to refuse funding for the expenditure based on the adjustment of entitlements that had been proposed to it.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 34, 36 and 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.










3.


Third plea in law alleging infringement of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and of the principle of proportionality.
Case T-470/16: Action brought on 22 August 2016 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)
Date: 2016-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01002001.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/20





Action brought on 22 August 2016 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)
(Case T-470/16)
(2016/C 383/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a triangle) — Application No 14 167 654

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in case R 2565/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.