do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-143/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003202.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/32





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
(Case T-143/17)
(2017/C 129/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/436 of 6 March 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on trade in organic products
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Chile, labelling, organic farming, organic product, signature of an agreement, trade agreement (EU), trade cooperation








L_2017067EN.01003301.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 67/33








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/436
of 6 March 2017
         
on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on trade in organic products


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 16 June 2014 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries with a view to concluding agreements on trade in organic products.












(2)


The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an agreement with the Republic of Chile on trade in organic products (‘the Agreement’).












(3)


In the Agreement, the Union and the Republic of Chile recognise the equivalence of their respective rules on organic production and control systems as regards organic products.












(4)


The Agreement aims at fostering trade in organic products, contributing to the development and expansion of the organic sector in the Union and in the Republic of Chile and achieving a high level of respect for the principles of organic production, of guarantee of the control systems and of integrity of organic products. It also aims at improving protection for the respective organic logos of the Union and the Republic of Chile, and enhancing regulatory cooperation between the Parties on issues related to organic production.












(5)


The Agreement should be signed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile on trade in organic products is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 6 March 2017.


For the Council


The President

R. GALDES
Case C-511/16: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, chemical product, classification, dangerous substance, labelling, packaging, periodic penalty payment, sanction (EU)








C_2017161EN.01001802.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/18





Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
(Case C-511/16) (1)

(2017/C 161/25)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case C-113/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action brought before an administrative court, competence of the institution, higher court, jurisdiction, refugee, right of asylum








C_2017168EN.01002301.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad
(Case C-113/17)
(2017/C 168/30)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: QJ

Respondent: Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’) be interpreted to the effect that a national court deciding on the merits of an applicant’s need for international protection may, on the grounds that a negative decision has been repeatedly set aside and the case referred back to an administrative body on the basis of a repeatedly successful appeal, which has thus been shown to be ineffective, decide itself to grant such protection to the applicant, even if it does not have such competence under national law?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does an appellate court competent to hear appeals concerning points of fact and law (the Najvyšší súd (Supreme Court) (Slovak Republic)) also have such jurisdiction?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
Case T-152/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, access to EU information, arrangement of working time, infringement procedure (EU), working time








C_2017144EN.01005301.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/53





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission
(Case T-152/17)
(2017/C 144/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the refusal of 10 January 2017 by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Commission, notified on 17 January 2017, to grant the applicant access to any submissions filed by any of the parties in ongoing infringement proceedings regarding an alleged violation by Ireland of the Working Time Directive.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to conduct a concrete assessment of the request of access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful reliance on a general presumption, in breach of the principles identified in the case-law cited.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document concerned, in breach of the case-law cited.










4.


Fourth plea in law alleging failure to proceed to a specific and effective examination of potential partial access, in breach of the case-law cited.










5.


Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law cited.
Case C-112/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Angela Irmgard Diedrich and Others v Société Air France SA
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2017213EN.01001701.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Angela Irmgard Diedrich and Others v Société Air France SA
(Case C-112/17)
(2017/C 213/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Angela Irmgard Diedrich, Thorsten Diedrich, Angel Wendy Mara Diedrich

Defendant: Société Air France SA
The case was removed from the register of the Court by order of the Court of 6 April 2017.
Case T-145/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003302.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/33





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kanyama v Council
(Case T-145/17)
(2017/C 129/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Gombe, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Célestin Kanyama;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Case T-141/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003102.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/31





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council
(Case T-141/17)
(2017/C 129/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Case C-115/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, economic offence, export (EU), export refund, legality, principle of proportionality








C_2017178EN.01000601.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot
(Case C-115/17)
(2017/C 178/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendants: Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

Question referred

Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he obtained export refunds, to which he was not entitled, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false declarations as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in the rules which occurred subsequent to the facts of the case, the goods that were in fact exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds?
Case T-140/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kampete. v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003101.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/31





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kampete. v Council
(Case T-140/17)
(2017/C 129/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Ilunga Kampete;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs, and to pay those of the applicant and of all the interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Case T-144/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Numbi v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003301.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/33





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Numbi v Council
(Case T-144/17)
(2017/C 129/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230, implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016, imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr John Numbi;










—


order the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, those of the applicant and all the interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Case T-139/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003001.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/30





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council
(Case T-139/17)
(2017/C 129/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roger Kibelisa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Roger Kibelisa;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs, and to pay those of the applicant and of all the interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements committed by the Council, in particular infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the Council's obligation to state reasons and infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law, in that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to property.
Case T-142/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017129EN.01003201.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/32





Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council
(Case T-142/17)
(2017/C 129/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Delphin Kaimbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Delphin Kaimbi;










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.
Case C-117/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: derogation from EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, industrial project








C_2017221EN.01000201.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others
(Case C-117/17)
(2017/C 221/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Comune di Castelbellino

Defendants: Regione Marche, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Marche Servizio Infrastrutture Trasporti Energia — P.F. Rete Elettrica Regionale, Provincia di Ancona

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law (and in particular Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested measures) preclude, as a rule, a national rule or administrative practice which allows EIA screening or EIAs in respect of plants already in existence at the time when the procedure takes place, or does it, on the other hand, allow exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation from the general rule that an EIA is, by nature, a preventative assessment to be taken in into account?










2.


More particularly, is such a derogation justified in the case in which a new law exempts from an EIA a specific project which would have been subject to screening on the basis of a decision of the national court that declared unconstitutional or disapplied an earlier rule providing for exemption?






(1)  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 (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).