do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1678 of 14 September 2016 establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2016254EN.01000801.xml










20.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 254/8








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/1678
of 14 September 2016
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe 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) 2016/72 (2) lays down quotas for 2016.












(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 2016.












(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 2016 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, 14 September 2016.


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) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (OJ L 22, 28.1.2016, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


26/TQ72




Member State


Belgium




Stock


HKE/8ABDE.




Species


Hake (Merluccius merluccius)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Closing date


20.8.2016
Case C-534/15: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare — Romania) — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Article 1(1) — Article 2(b) — Status of consumer — Assignment of a debt by novation of loan agreements — Contracts providing immovable property as security entered into by individuals not having any professional relationship with the new debtor company)
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, credit institution, debt, firm governed by commercial law, loan, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2016454EN.01001101.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/11






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare — Romania) — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare
(Case C-534/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 1(1) - Article 2(b) - Status of consumer - Assignment of a debt by novation of loan agreements - Contracts providing immovable property as security entered into by individuals not having any professional relationship with the new debtor company))
(2016/C 454/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș

Defendant: BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare

Operative part of the order

Articles 1(1) and 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a contract providing immovable property as security concluded between natural persons and a credit institution in order to guarantee the obligations that a commercial company has undertaken with respect to that credit institution for a credit agreement, where those natural persons have acted for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession and have no functional links with that company, which is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case T-57/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission (State aid — Port services — Alleged aid to the public ferry operator of Jadrolinija — Setting of fees by the Croatian authorities for port services in the Port of Split in respect of domestic traffic at an allegedly lower level than that of the fees applied in other Croatian ports and those applied for international traffic — Private operator holding an allegedly exclusive concession for the operation of the passenger terminal at the Port of Split — Decision finding no State aid — Definition of aid — State resources)
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, ferryboat, terms for aid








C_2016392EN.01003202.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/32





Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
(Case T-57/15) (1)

((State aid - Port services - Alleged aid to the public ferry operator of Jadrolinija - Setting of fees by the Croatian authorities for port services in the Port of Split in respect of domestic traffic at an allegedly lower level than that of the fees applied in other Croatian ports and those applied for international traffic - Private operator holding an allegedly exclusive concession for the operation of the passenger terminal at the Port of Split - Decision finding no State aid - Definition of aid - State resources))
(2016/C 392/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7285 final of 15 October 2014 on State Aid SA.37265 (2014/NN) — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Trajektna luka Split d.d. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1681 of 14 September 2016 establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2016254EN.01001401.xml










20.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 254/14








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/1681
of 14 September 2016
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in areas VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe 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) 2016/72 (2) lays down quotas for 2016.












(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 2016.












(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 2016 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, 14 September 2016.


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) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (OJ L 22, 28.1.2016, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


29/TQ72




Member State


Belgium




Stock


LEZ/*8ABDE




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe




Closing date


20.8.2016
Case C-492/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, industrial property, market approval, medicinal product








C_2016454EN.01001701.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
(Case C-492/16)
(2016/C 454/30)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Incyte Corporation

Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the date of the first authorization to place the product on the market in the Community’ is incorrect in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, within the meaning of that regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, (2) where that date was determined without taking account of the Court of Justice’s interpretation of the law in the judgment in Seattle Genetics (Case C-471/14), with the result that it is appropriate to rectify the date of expiry of the supplementary protection certificate even if the decision to grant that certificate was made prior to that judgment and the time limit for appealing against that decision has already expired?










2.


Is the industrial property authority of a Member State which is entitled to grant a supplementary protection certificate required to rectify, of its own motion, the date of expiry of that certificate in order to ensure that that certificate complies with the interpretation of the law set out in Case C-471/14?






(1)  OJ 1996, L 198, p. 30.

(2)  OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1.
Case C-490/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 14 September 2016 — A.S. v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, admission of aliens, external border of the EU, foreign national, internal border of the EU








C_2016419EN.01003401.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/34





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 14 September 2016 — A.S. v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-490/16)
(2016/C 419/44)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred







(1)


Does judicial protection under Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 concern also the interpretation of the conditions of the criterion under Article 13(1) in respect of a decision that the Member State will not examine the application for international protection, that another Member State has already assumed responsibility for examining the applicant’s application on the same basis and where the applicant challenges this?










(2)


Is the condition of irregular crossing under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 to be interpreted independently or in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115 on return and Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code which define illegal crossing of the border and must that interpretation be applied in relation to Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013?










(3)


In view of the answer to the second question, is the concept of irregular crossing under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in the circumstances of the present case to be interpreted as meaning that there is no irregular crossing of the border where the public authorities of a Member State organise the crossing of the border with the aim of transit to another Member State of the EU?










(4)


In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, is Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 consequently to be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits sending a national of a third State back to the State where he initially entered EU territory?










(5)


Is Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits of Article 13(1) and Article 29(2) do not run where the applicant exercises the right to judicial protection, a fortiori where that implies also a question for a preliminary ruling or where the national court is awaiting the answer of the Court of Justice of the European Union to such a question which has been submitted in another case? In the alternative, would the time-limits run in such a case, the Member State responsible however not being entitled to refuse reception?
Case T-651/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2016410EN.01002302.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/23





Action brought on 14 September 2016 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)
(Case T-651/16)
(2016/C 410/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: J. Guise, D. Knight, L. Cassidy, H. Seymour, Solicitors, M. Berger, N. Hadjadj Cazier, H. Haouideg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 257 001-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 06/06/2016 in Case R 853/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and find that the website disclosures did not constitute a prior disclosure within the meaning of Article 7; upheld the contested registered Community design and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;










—


make an award of costs in its favour.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2016 on the draft Council decision on the Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment and repealing Decision 2003/174/EC (05820/2014 — C8-0164/2016 — 2013/0361(APP))
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Council, economic growth, employment policy, social dialogue, social partners, summit meeting








C_2018204EN.01022001.xml










13.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/220





P8_TA(2016)0340
Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2016 on the draft Council decision on the Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment and repealing Decision 2003/174/EC (05820/2014 — C8-0164/2016 — 2013/0361(APP))
(Special legislative procedure — consent)
(2018/C 204/35)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (05820/2014),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0164/2016),










—


having regard to its interim resolution of 15 April 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision on a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment (1),










—


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










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0252/2016),












1.


Gives its consent to the draft Council decision;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0377.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norrbotten county, Stockholm, Sweden, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2016337EN.01000601.xml










14.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/6





Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 337/05)






Member State


Sweden




Concerned routes


Gällivare-Stockholm (Arlanda)




Period of validity of the contract


18 December 2016-26 October 2019




Deadline for submission of tenders


60 days after the date of publication of this tender invitation




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained


For further information please contact:





The Swedish Transport Administration




SE-781 87 Borlänge




SVERIGE




http://www.trafikverket.se/Foretag/Upphandling/Aktuella-upphandlingar/




RFT referens: CTM:146241




Tel. +46 771921921




Contacts:




Håkan Jacobsson: hakan.jacobsson@trafikverket.se




Anna Fällbom: anna.fallbom@trafikverket.se
Case T-705/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016410EN.01003502.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/35





Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-705/15) (1)

(2016/C 410/58)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-707/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council
Date: 2016-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, goodwill, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2016410EN.01003504.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/35





Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-707/15) (1)

(2016/C 410/60)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.