do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-537/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, income in addition to normal pay, lawyer, legal aid, merchant








C_2014009EN.01001702.xml










11.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas
(Case C-537/13)
2014/C 9/27
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Birutė Šiba

Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

Questions referred







1.


Is a natural person who receives legal services pursuant to agreements for legal services concluded with a lawyer (an advokatas) for a fee, those services being supplied in cases which are likely to be connected with the natural person’s personal interests (divorce, division of assets acquired in the marriage and so forth), to be regarded as a consumer within the meaning of EU consumer protection laws?










2.


Is a lawyer (an advokatas who is a member of a ‘[liberal] profession’) who draws up an agreement with a natural person for the supply of legal services in return for a fee, which obliges him to provide legal services so that the natural person may achieve aims unconnected with her occupation or profession, to be regarded as a trader for the purposes of EU consumer protection laws?










3.


Do agreements for the supply of legal services for a fee which a lawyer (an advokatas) draws up in the course of his professional activities as a representative of a liberal profession fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










4.


If the third question should be answered in the affirmative, are general criteria to be applied in classifying such agreements as consumer contracts or should they be recognised as consumer contracts according to special criteria? If it is necessary to apply special criteria for the classification of such agreements as consumer contracts, what are those criteria?






(1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.
Case C-536/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: court of arbitration, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, rights of the defence








C_2013377EN.01000701.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania
(Case C-536/13)
2013/C 377/14
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Gazprom OAO

Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania, represented by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania

Questions referred







1.


Where an arbitral tribunal issues an anti-suit injunction and thereby prohibits a party from bringing certain claims before a court of a Member State, which under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation (1) has jurisdiction to hear the civil case as to the substance, does the court of a Member State have the right to refuse to recognise such an award of the arbitral tribunal because it restricts the court’s right to determine itself whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?










2.


Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, does the same also apply where the anti-suit injunction issued by the arbitral tribunal orders a party to the proceedings to limit his claims in a case which is being heard in another Member State and the court of that Member State has jurisdiction to hear that case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?










3.


Can a national court, seeking to safeguard the primacy of European Union law and the full effectiveness of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse to recognise an award of an arbitral tribunal if such an award restricts the right of the national court to decide on its own jurisdiction and powers in a case which falls within the jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-128/13: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla, SA v OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Surrender of national trade mark — Action which becomes devoid of purpose in the course of proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine of superior quality








C_2013359EN.01001302.xml










7.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/13





Order of the General Court of 14 October 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla, SA v OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ)
(Case T-128/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Surrender of national trade mark - Action which becomes devoid of purpose in the course of proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 359/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tesco Stores Ltd (Cheshunt, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 854/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tesco Stores Ltd and Vicente Gandia Pla, SA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Case F-103/13: Action brought on 14th October 2013 — ZZ v EMA
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, report, staff assessment








C_2013367EN.01004103.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/41





Action brought on 14th October 2013 — ZZ v EMA
(Case F-103/13)
2013/C 367/75
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: EMA

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the appraisal report of the Applicant, covering the period of 15th September 2010 to 16th January 2012.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Applicant’s performance evaluation report for the period from 15 September 2010 to 15 September 2012 as finalised on 16 January 2013;










—


annul, and so far as necessary, EMA Deputy Executive Director’s decision of 2 July 2013, partially rejecting his complaint dated 6 March 2013 against the aforementioned decision;










—


order the EMA to pay all the costs incurred by the appellant for the present appeal.
Case T-549/13: Action brought on 14 October 2013 — France v Commission
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: export refund, meat product, poultry, reform of the CAP








C_2013367EN.01003502.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/35





Action brought on 14 October 2013 — France v Commission
(Case T-549/13)
2013/C 367/63
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission’s reasoning was not clear and unequivocal and, consequently, it did not allow the interested parties to know the reasons for the contested regulation. The applicant claims that:






—


first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and,










—


secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector.














2.


Second plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation (1) by considering that the market situation and the national and international situation at the time the contested regulation was adopted justified fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate. The applicant claims that:






—


the Commission carried out a manifestly erroneous assessment of the market situation;










—


the Commission manifestly infringed the limits of its discretion by taking into account, for the adoption of the contested regulation, the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the ongoing negotiations in the context of the WTO, which are matters not included among those exhaustively listed in Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation.










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 987/2013 of 14 October 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fenland Celery (PGI))
Date: 2013-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, designation of origin, leaf vegetable, product designation








L_2013273EN.01002701.xml










15.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 273/27








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 987/2013
of 14 October 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fenland Celery (PGI))


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, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Fenland Celery’ 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 ‘Fenland Celery’ 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, 14 October 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 353, 17.11.2012, p. 9.




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

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

UNITED KINGDOM
Fenland Celery (PGI)