do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 898/2013 of 9 September 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de Navarra (PDO)]
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Navarre, Spain, designation of origin, olive oil, product designation








L_2013250EN.01002601.xml










20.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 250/26








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 898/2013
of 9 September 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de Navarra (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Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural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)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Navarra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de Navarra’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


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, 9 September 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 C 322, 24.10.2012, p. 9.




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

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

SPAIN
Aceite de Navarra (PDO)
Case T-430/11: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Telefónica v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, shareholding, tax system, telecommunications industry








C_2013336EN.01002202.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/22





Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Telefónica v Commission
(Case T-430/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid - Act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme - No obligation to repay the aid - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 336/45
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Telefónica, SA is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-489/12: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Planet v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Contracts relating to Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects — Eligible costs — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible)
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, contract terms, costing, eligibility criteria, interest in bringing an action








C_2013336EN.01002402.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/24





Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Planet v Commission
(Case T-489/12) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Contracts relating to Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible)
2013/C 336/51
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, agents, and by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action based on Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking a declaration that, first, the refusal by the Commission to allow as eligible costs certain sums paid in advance of completion of the contracts ‘Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, ‘Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, concluded as part of the Sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006), is an infringement by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, that those sums are eligible costs and ought not to be repaid.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 899/2013 of 9 September 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceite de Lucena (PDO))
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, designation of origin, olive oil, product designation








L_2013250EN.01002801.xml










20.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 250/28








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 899/2013
of 9 September 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceite de Lucena (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 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)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de Lucena’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


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, 9 September 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 C 352, 16.11.2012, p. 13.




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

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

SPAIN
Aceite de Lucena (PDO)
Case C-488/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, enforcement of ruling, financial solvency








C_2013344EN.01004701.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/47





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD
(Case C-488/13)
2013/C 344/81
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS

Defendants:‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD, Insolvency administrator of ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD

Questions referred







1.


How is the criterion of the uncontested nature of an enforceable pecuniary claim within the meaning of the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 to be interpreted?










2.


In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced?










3.


Is Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation, according to which the Regulation shall not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction only concerns the initiation of the proceedings referred to, or does that restriction also cover the whole course of the proceedings according to the stages of the proceedings provided for in the national legislation of the Member State of the European Union concerned?










4.


In accordance with the doctrine of the primacy of Community law and in the case of a gap in the national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, may the national court of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were initiated against a person whose property is affected by the enforcement deliver a judgment which is different and contrary to the basic principles of the Regulation by way of interpretation of the tenth recital in the preamble to, and Article 26 of, the Regulation?
Case F-84/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, transfer of pension rights








C_2013325EN.01005202.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/52





Action brought on 9 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-84/13)
2013/C 325/85
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions and relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful and therefore inapplicable;










—


annul the decision of 26 November 2012 — and that of 27 June 2013 confirming it — concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-480/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, dyestuff, solvent








C_2013352EN.01000302.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
(Case C-480/13)
2013/C 352/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sysmex Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Question referred

Should a product have been classified, in 2005, under heading 3212 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) as a dye or colouring matter where it is composed of solvents and of a polymethine substance which can have a certain colouring effect — which, on textiles at least, is not permanent — but which, in the case of the product to be classified, serves to obtain information on particles (white blood cells) contained in a test solution (pre-treated blood) by means of a process in which, through the deposition of ions in defined components of the particles (nucleic acids), the substance forms molecular structures which, when exposed to laser light on a certain wavelength, become fluorochromatic for a limited period and this state and its extent are measured with the aid of a special photoelectric cell?


(1)  The Combined Nomenclature in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1).
Case T-484/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01005902.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/59





Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)
(Case T-484/13)
2013/C 344/109
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2013 given in Case R 187/2013-2.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE YOUTH EXPERTS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 — International registration No 1 112 578 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
Case T-499/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01006301.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/63





Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)
(Case T-499/13)
2013/C 344/116
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTER SCHEDULING’ for goods in Class 9 — International registration No 1 093 837 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
Case T-482/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013313EN.01003301.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/33





Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)
(Case T-482/13)
2013/C 313/63
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cryo-Save AG (Pfäffikon, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and alter it to the effect that the appeal lodged by the applicant at OHIM is well-founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected;










—


In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and refer the case back to the competent Examiner at OHIM;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CryoSafe’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 619 586

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cryo-Save AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CryoSave’ for goods in Classes 10, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Case C-481/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, border control, forgery of documents, passport, refugee, right of asylum, trafficking in human beings








C_2013352EN.01000401.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani
(Case C-481/13)
2013/C 352/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Bamberg

Party to the main proceedings

Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

Questions referred







1.


Does the personal ground for the suspension of penalties in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘GC’) also include, beyond its wording, forgery of documents, which took place on presentation of a forged passport to a police officer on the occasion of entry by air into the Federal Republic of Germany, when the forged passport is not in fact necessary to apply for asylum in that State?










2.


Does the use of human traffickers preclude reliance on Article 31 GC?










3.


Is the factual requirement in Article 31 GC, of coming ‘directly’ from a territory where the life or freedom of the person concerned was threatened, to be interpreted as meaning that that element is also satisfied if the person concerned first entered another Member State (here: Greece) from where he continued to another Member State (here: the Federal Republic of Germany) in which he seeks asylum?