do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 972/2013 of 9 October 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Μεσσαρά (Messara) (PDO))
Date: 2013-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Crete, Greece, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2013272EN.01000301.xml










12.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 272/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 972/2013
of 9 October 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Μεσσαρά (Messara) (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Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural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, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Μεσσαρά’ (Messara) 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 ‘Μεσσαρά’ (Messara) 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 October 2013.


For the Commission

Joaquín ALMUNIA
            

Vice-President






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

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

(3)  
            OJ C 396, 21.12.2012, p. 24.




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

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

GREECE
Μεσσαρά (Messara) (PDO)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 965/2013 of 9 October 2013 amending for the 204th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network
Date: 2013-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic sanctions, international sanctions, terrorism








L_2013268EN.01000701.xml










10.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 268/7








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 965/2013
of 9 October 2013
         
amending for the 204th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 1 October 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering a de-listing request submitted by this person and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1904(2009).












(3)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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 October 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:
The following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:


            ‘Moustafa Abbes (alias (a) Mostafa Abbes, (b) Mostafa Abbas, (c) Mustafa Abbas (d) Moustapha Abbes). Address: Algeria. Date of birth: 5.2.1962. Place of birth: (a) Osniers, Algeria, (b) France. Nationality: Algerian. Other information: Brother of Youcef Abbes. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a (4) (b): 17.3.2004.’
Case C-532/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség
Date: 2013-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conservation of resources, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, trade restriction








C_2014015EN.01000502.xml










18.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség
(Case C-532/13)
2014/C 15/06
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sofia Zoo

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

Questions referred







1.


Under Article 11(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, (1) must permits and certificates be deemed void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by a ground for invalidity, or in respect also of the other specimens covered by the permit or certificate?










2.


Does Article 11(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provide that all the specimens covered by the permits or certificates deemed void in accordance with Article 11(2)(a) must be seized, and may be confiscated, or only those which are actually affected by the ground for invalidity?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1).
Case F-116/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary agent — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Annual dialogue with the reporting officer — Setting objectives)
Date: 2013-10-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, staff assessment








C_2013344EN.01006901.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/69





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex
(Case F-116/12) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agent - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives)
2013/C 344/126
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S.Vuorensola, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s staff report and claim for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Rejects the application.










2.


Orders Mr Wahlström to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 379, 08.12.2012, p. 39.
Case T-541/13: Action brought on 9 October 2013 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
Date: 2013-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Basque Country, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, digitisation, domestic market, high-definition television, public financing, services of general interest








C_2013352EN.01002201.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/22





Action brought on 9 October 2013 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
(Case T-541/13)
2013/C 352/41
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Abertis Telecom, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (Barcelona) (represented by: L. Cases Pallarés, J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares there to be State aid incompatible with the internal market;










—


consequently, annul the recovery orders set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision;










—


order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, the Commission to produce the cost report submitted by ASTRA; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present case is the same as that in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.
The applicants raise the same pleas in support of their action as those raised in the aforecited case.