do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-459/11: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission
Date: 2013-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, business administration, tax relief








C_2013225EN.01008304.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/83





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission
(Case T-459/11) (1)

2013/C 225/189
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 531/2013 of 10 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 as regards the system of import licences for garlic by reason of the accession of Croatia
Date: 2013-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, bulb vegetable, common organisation of markets, import (EU), import licence, tariff quota








L_2013159EN.01000501.xml










11.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 159/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 531/2013
of 10 June 2013
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 as regards the system of import licences for garlic by reason of the accession of Croatia


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,


Having regard to the Act of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 (1) opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas and introduces a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries.












(2)


Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 draws a distinction between traditional and new importers in respect of traders that may apply for import licences for garlic under the tariff quotas that are opened and administered under that Regulation.












(3)


In view of the expected accession of Croatia to the Union as from 1 July 2013, transitional rules should be laid down in order to allow importers in Croatia to benefit from the import quotas as traditional importers. Those rules should apply only till those importers are able to fulfil the existing rules.












(4)


Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 341/2007

In Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007, the following fourth subparagraph is added:

                     ‘For Croatia, for the 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 import tariff quota periods:






(a)


point (a) of the first subparagraph shall not apply; and










(b)


“import into the Union” shall be understood as import from countries of origin other than the Member States of the Union as constituted at 1 July 2013.’






Article 2

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 June 2013.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 90, 30.3.2007, p. 12.
Case T-277/09: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission
Date: 2013-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, access to EU information, administrative transparency, equal treatment, invitation to tender, provision of services








C_2013225EN.01008204.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/82





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission
(Case T-277/09) (1)

2013/C 225/185
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.
Case C-316/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon
Date: 2013-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, application of EU law, equal treatment, integration of people with disabilities, interpretation of the law, labour force, paid leave








C_2013215EN.01001301.xml










27.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon
(Case C-316/13)
2013/C 215/17
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Gérard Fenoll

Respondents in cassation: Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3 of Directive 89/391/EEC, (1) to which Article 1 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, (2) determining the scope thereof, refers, be interpreted as meaning that a person placed in a work rehabilitation centre can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 3?










2.


Must Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as described in the previous question, can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 31?










3.


Can a person, such as described in the first question, rely directly on the rights conferred on her or him by the Charter in order to obtain an entitlement to paid leave if national legislation does not provide for any such entitlement, and must the national courts, in order to ensure that those rights are fully effective, set aside any contrary provision of national law?






(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
2013/275/EU: Council Decision of 10 June 2013 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances
Date: 2013-06-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: World Intellectual Property Organisation, audiovisual production, copyright, international agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2013160EN.01000101.xml










12.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 160/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 10 June 2013
         
on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances
(2013/275/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 7 November 2000 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate in the context of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to ensure participation of the European Community in the Diplomatic Conference held in Geneva from 7 to 20 December 2000 with the aim of drawing up an instrument to protect performers’ rights in their audiovisual performances.












(2)


The negotiations were successfully concluded at a reconvened Diplomatic Conference held in Beijing from 20 to 26 June 2012 and the WIPO Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (the ‘Beijing Treaty’) was adopted on 24 June 2012.












(3)


The Beijing Treaty establishes a set of new international rules in the area of neighbouring rights which aim at ensuring the adequate protection and remuneration of audiovisual performers.












(4)


The Beijing Treaty is open for signature by any eligible party for one year after its adoption.












(5)


The Union has exclusive competence for a number of provisions of the Beijing Treaty where corresponding Union legislation has been adopted. Therefore, the Beijing Treaty should be signed on behalf of Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date.












(6)


By signing the Beijing Treaty the Union will not be exercising shared competence, hence Member States retain their competence in the areas covered by the Beijing Treaty which do not affect common rules or alter the scope of such rules,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing of the WIPO Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (the ‘Beijing Treaty’) on behalf of the Union is hereby approved, subject to the conclusion of the said Treaty (1).


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


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




Done at Luxembourg, 10 June 2013.


For the Council


The President

L. VARADKAR
            





(1)  The text of the Beijing Treaty will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.