do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/302 of 15 February 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs (OJ L 43, 21.2.2017)
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, intensive livestock farming, pollution control, pollution from agricultural sources, poultry farming, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, swine, technological change








L_2017105EN.01002101.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 105/21







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/302 of 15 February 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 43 of 21 February 2017
)


On page 257, point 2.1 Ammonia emissions from pig houses:
for:














‘10.


Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure).






Farrowing sows


Not applicable to existing plants without solid concrete floors.’










11.


Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens).






Mating and gestating sows





read:














‘10.


Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure).






Farrowing sows


May not be generally applicable to existing plants due to technical and/or economic considerations.










11.


Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens).






Mating and gestating sows


Not applicable to existing plants without solid concrete floors.’





on page 277, point 4.13.1 Techniques for reducing ammonia emissions from houses for laying hens, broiler breeders or pullets:
for:







‘Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:






—


one removal per week with air drying; or










—


two removals per week without air drying.






Belts are placed under the cages for manure removal. The frequency of removal can be once every week (with air drying) or more (without air drying). The collection belt may be ventilated for drying the manure. Whisk-forced air drying in the manure belt can be also used.’





read:







‘Technique


Description




Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:






—


one removal per week with air drying; or










—


two removals per week without air drying.






Belts are placed under the cages for manure removal. The frequency of removal can be once every week (with air drying) or more (without air drying). The collection belt may be ventilated for drying the manure. Whisk-forced air drying in the manure belt can be also used.’
Case C-209/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NG against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-193/16: NG v European Council
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, agreement (EU), aid to refugees, jurisdiction, legal expenses, migration, right of asylum








C_2017231EN.01001301.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/13





Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NG against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-193/16: NG v European Council
(Case C-209/17 P)
(2017/C 231/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: NG (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;










—


Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-193/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;










—


Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Failure to give reasons;










2.


Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;










3.


Ignoring relevant factual issues;










4.


Failure to consider evidence that was before it;










5.


Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;










6.


Failure to make further relevant enquiries;










7.


Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;










8.


Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.
Case C-208/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, agreement (EU), aid to refugees, jurisdiction, legal expenses, migration, right of asylum








C_2017231EN.01001202.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/12





Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council
(Case C-208/17 P)
(2017/C 231/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: NF (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;










—


Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-192/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;










—


Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Failure to give reasons;










2.


Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;










3.


Ignoring relevant factual issues;










4.


Failure to consider evidence that was before it;










5.


Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;










6.


Failure to make further relevant enquiries;










7.


Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;










8.


Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.