do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-596/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, offence, penalty








C_2017063EN.01001401.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-596/16)
(2017/C 063/20)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Enzo Di Puma

Respondent: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, this precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?










2.


In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the principle ne bis in idem referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the national court take into account the limits for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)







(1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).
Joined Cases T-694/13 and T-2/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Ipatau v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, removal, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017014EN.01003001.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/30






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Ipatau v Council
(Joined Cases T-694/13 and T-2/15) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality))
(2017/C 014/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2014 L 311, p. 2), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ C 141, 9.5.2014)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Abruzzi, Czechia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lombardy, Spain, State aid, Tuscany, aid to undertakings, aquaculture, carriage of goods, company in difficulties, control of State aid, economic recession, financial services, fishing industry, heating, inland waterway transport, innovation, insurance, natural disaster, regional development, research and development








C_2016432EN.01001101.xml










23.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/11





Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 141 of 9 May 2014
)
(2016/C 432/08)
On page 3, aid number: SA.36906 (2013/N):

for:


‘until 31.12.2016’,


read:


‘from the date of the Commission decision until 3 years after that decision’.