do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-132/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, Germany, approximation of laws, electrical equipment, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law








C_2013164EN.01001101.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH
(Case C-132/13)
2013/C 164/18
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II, IV and III to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1) to be interpreted in such a way that housings 
as a component
 of multipole connectors for industrial purposes are 
not
 to have a ‘CE’ marking affixed to them?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10.
2013/138/EU: Council Decision of 18 March 2013 establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Grains Council with respect to the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: cereals, commodity agreement, renewal of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2013077EN.01000101.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 March 2013
         
establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Grains Council with respect to the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995
(2013/138/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

The Grains Trade Convention 1995 was concluded by Council Decision 96/88/EC (1) and was regularly extended for further periods of two years. That Convention was extended the last time by decision of the International Grains Council in June 2011 and remains in force until 30 June 2013. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Grains Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the International Grains Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the Grains Trade Convention 1995 for a further period of up to two years.
The Commission is hereby authorised to express that position within the International Grains Council.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.


For the Council


The President

S. COVENEY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 21, 27.1.1996, p. 47.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2013 of 18 March 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Wachauer Marille (PDO))
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, designation of origin, product designation, stone fruit








L_2013082EN.01003401.xml










22.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 82/34








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 265/2013
of 18 March 2013
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Wachauer Marille (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).












(2)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Austria’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Wachauer Marille’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3).












(3)


Since the amendments in question are not minor, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As no statement of objection under Article 7 of that Regulation has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 18 March 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ C 140, 16.5.2012, p. 18.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

AUSTRIA
Wachauer Marille (PDO)
Case C-129/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fundamental rights, national law, rights of the defence








C_2013171EN.01001102.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-129/13)
2013/C 171/22
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Kamino International Logistics BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






(a)


must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?










(b)


are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?














3.


If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?
Case T-215/09: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, airport, control of State aid








C_2013141EN.01002601.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/26





Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
(Case T-215/09) (1)

2013/C 141/47
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.
2013/141/EU: Council Decision of 18 March 2013 appointing a Spanish member and three Spanish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Spain, appointment of members








L_2013077EN.01002401.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/24








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 March 2013
         
appointing a Spanish member and three Spanish alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
(2013/141/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposals of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.












(2)


A member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Francisco Javier LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ. Three alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Guillermo ECHENIQUE GONZÁLEZ, Mr Senén FLORENSA I PALAU and Ms Elvira SAINT-GERONS HERRERA,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






(a)


as member:






—


Mr Iñigo URKULLU RENTERIA, Presidente del Gobierno Vasco;




and










(b)


as alternate members:






—


Ms María Ángeles ELORZA ZUBIRÍA, Secretaria General de Acción Exterior del Gobierno Vasco,










—


Mr Roger ALBINYANA I SAIGÍ, Secretario de Asuntos Exteriores, Generalitat de Cataluña,










—


Ms María Sol CALZADO GARCÍA, Secretaria General de Acción Exterior de la Junta de Andalucía.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.


For the Council


The President

S. COVENEY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

(2)  
            OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
Case C-130/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fundamental rights, national law, rights of the defence








C_2013171EN.01001201.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-130/13)
2013/C 171/23
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






(a)


must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?










(b)


are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?














3.


If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?
Case C-135/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, eligibility criteria, rural development








C_2013171EN.01001302.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Szatmári Malom Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
(Case C-135/13)
2013/C 171/26
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Szatmári Malom Kft.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred







1.


May a situation where a business operator, having closed down previous holdings, wishes to establish a new holding without increasing existing capacity be deemed to fall within the concept of improving overall performance of the agricultural holding under Article 26(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development?










2.


May the investment to be made by the applicant be interpreted as investment for the purpose of improving overall performance of the enterprise within the meaning of Articles 20(b)(iii) and 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (1)











3.


Is Paragraph 6(3) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM) No 47/2008 of 17 April 2008 compatible with Article 28(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in that, as regards mills, only support for operations for the purpose of modernising existing capacity is granted? Does the Regulation empower the national legislature to exclude certain types of development from support for economic reasons?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).
Case T-168/13: Action brought on 18 March 2013 — EPAW v Commission
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: amendment of a law, public consultation, renewable energy








C_2013207EN.01003601.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/36





Action brought on 18 March 2013 — EPAW v Commission
(Case T-168/13)
2013/C 207/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) (Kingscourt, Republic of Ireland) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’ COM(2012) 271;










—


Annul the answer of the European Commission to the Request for Internal Review of EPAW No AG/ss ener.c.l(2012)1664829 by way of DG Energy dated 21 January 2013





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Commission Communication COM(2012)271 is unlawful.






—


Commission Communication COM(2012)271 failed to provide for public participation on the Renewable Energy Strategy in compliance with the Aarhus Convention.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Communication COM(2012)271 is unlawful.






—


Commission Communication(2012)271 failed to comply with the Aarhus Regulation (EU Regulation 1367/2006).














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the letter of the Commission No AG/ss ener.c.l(2012)1664829 is unlawful.






—


The letter of the Commission unlawfully states that an administrative act in order to be reviewable via a request for Internal Review pursuant to the EU Regulation 1367/2006 has to be an act of individual scope and to be an act adopted by an EU institution having legally binding effects.
Council Decision 2013/134/CFSP of 18 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, economic sanctions, international sanctions, removal








L_2013075EN.01003301.xml










19.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 75/33








            COUNCIL DECISION 2013/134/CFSP
of 18 March 2013
         
amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1).












(2)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2014.












(3)


Decision 2011/173/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2014.’.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.


For the Council


The President

S. COVENEY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68.
Case C-134/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2013 — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, United Kingdom, interpretation of the law, thermal equipment








C_2013141EN.01001601.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2013 — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
(Case C-134/13)
2013/C 141/29
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 314/2011 of 30 March 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (1) valid in so far as it classifies infrared thermal cameras under CN code 9025 19 20?


(1)  OJ L 86, p. 57
2013/139/EU: Council Decision of 18 March 2013 establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: commodity agreement, renewal of an agreement, sugar, trade agreement (EU)








L_2013077EN.01000201.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/2








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 March 2013
         
establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Sugar Council as regards the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992
(2013/139/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

The International Sugar Agreement 1992 was concluded by Council Decision 92/580/EEC (1) and entered into force on 1 January 1993 for a period of three years until 31 December 1995. Since then, it has been regularly extended for further periods of two years. It was last extended by decision of the International Sugar Council in June 2011 and remains in force until 31 December 2013. A further extension is in the interest of the Union. The Commission, which represents the Union within the International Sugar Council, should therefore be authorised to vote in favour of such extension,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the International Sugar Council shall be to vote in favour of the extension of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 for a further period of up to two years.
The Commission is hereby authorised to express that position within the International Sugar Council.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.


For the Council


The President

S. COVENEY
            





(1)  
            OJ L 379, 23.12.1992, p. 15.