Haroun Gaye was listed on 17 December 2015 pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 (b) and (f) of resolution 2196 (2015) as ‘engaging in or providing support for acts that undermine the peace, stability or security of the CAR’; ‘involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that violate international human rights law or international humanitarian law, as applicable, or that constitute human rights abuses or violations, in the CAR, including acts involving sexual violence, targeting of civilians, ethnic- or religious-based attacks, attacks on schools and hospitals, and abduction ...[+++] and forced displacement; ’ and ‘involved in planning, directing, sponsoring, or conducting attacks against UN missions or international security presences, including MINUSCA, the European Union Missions and French operations which support them’.

The expulsions have been carried out on public policy grounds relating to offences committed by the people concerned.

The expulsion decisions are based on grounds of public policy linked to offences committed by the individuals concerned.

Preliminary ruling · Corte d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin), Italy · Interpretation of Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention · Judgment, recognition of which is contrary to public policy in the State in which recognition is sought · Inclusion in the public policy of a Member State of rules of Community law · Scope of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 86 of the EC Treaty · Conflict between the intellectual property rights of a car manufacturer in the whole or component parts of a car's bodywork and the rights of a manufacturer of spare parts

The Commission considers that agreements under which one firm, called "the contractor", whether or not in consequence of a prior order from a third party, entrusts to another, called "the subcontractor", the manufacture of goods, the supply of services or the performance of work under the contractor's instructions, to be provided to the contractor or performed on his behalf, are not of themselves caught by the prohibition in Article 85 (1).

Following discussions with the services of the Commission, the SIPPA modified its regulations, which now only contain the two following restrictions : - a limitation on admission is possible, but only in the event of a lack of space, and according to an order giving priority to manufacturers (since SIPPA is essentially a show for manufacturers to make known new products), then to their representatives, and then to distributors exhi ...[+++]biting new products which are not presented by the manufacturer or its representatives; - the second restriction of competition is found in the prohibition imposed on exhibitors against carrying out "active" canvassing (for example by means of catalogues relating to the whole range of products which they manufacture or distribute) in favour of products not exhibited on the stand.