do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-367/11: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO — Liner Plants (1993) (SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR — Objections — Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Competence of the CPVO — Taking of evidence — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plant variety right, proof








C_2013359EN.01001103.xml










7.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/11





Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO — Liner Plants (1993) (SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR)
(Case T-367/11) (1)

(Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR - Objections - Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Competence of the CPVO - Taking of evidence - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2013/C 359/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lyder Enterprises Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: G.J. Pickering, Solicitor)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Liner Plants (1993) Ltd (Waitakere, New Zealand) (represented by: P.S. Jonker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 May 2011 (Case A 7/2010), concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Lyder Enterprises Ltd shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-555/13: Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2013377EN.01001801.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/18





Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)
(Case T-555/13)
2013/C 377/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L.-É. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España, SA (La Guardia, Spain)

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 14 August 2013 given in Case R 2588/2011-2;










—


Grant Community trade mark application No 8 837 379 for the word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 33;










—


Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 837 379

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 237 875 of the figurative mark for ‘all kinds of wine except sparkling wine and sherry’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 95 020 of the figurative mark for ‘any class of wines except sparkling wine and sherry wine’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 1 508 304 of the word mark ‘IMPERIAL’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) CTMR and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995.
Case C-253/13: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2014102EN.01003002.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/30





Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-253/13) (1)

2014/C 102/46
Language of the case: Bulgarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case C-547/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, interpretation of the law, medical device








C_2013377EN.01000801.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams (Latvia) lodged on 21 October 2013 — SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-547/13)
2013/C 377/16
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvās rajona tiesas Rīgas tiesu nams

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘OLIVER MEDICAL’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?










2.


If headings 9018 and 9019 should not be applicable, may those goods be classified under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?










3.


If the reply is negative, what other heading provides the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature for the purposes of classification?






(1)  OJ L 256, 1, p. 1.
Case T-226/13 P: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Letter concerning compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal sent to the appellant’s representative in the appeal brought against that judgment — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, appeal, enforcement of ruling, judgment of the Court (EU)








C_2013359EN.01001402.xml










7.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/14





Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-226/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Letter concerning compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal sent to the appellant’s representative in the appeal brought against that judgment - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
2013/C 359/27
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that order be set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.










3.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Council Decision of 21 October 2013 adopting the Council position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2013
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, draft budget (EU), general budget (EU)








C_2013316EN.01000801.xml










30.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/8





COUNCIL DECISION
of 21 October 2013
adopting the Council position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2013
2013/C 316/04
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2),










—


on 10 July 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2013,










—


on 20 September 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing a letter of amendment to draft amending budget No 6 to the general budget for the financial year 2013,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2013, as modified by its letter of amendment, was adopted on 21 October 2013.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 21 October 2013.


For the Council


The President

L. LINKEVIČIUS




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 66, 8.3.2013, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 134, 18.5.2013, p. 21.
Case C-321/13: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, infringement of EU law, land transport, national implementing measure, scientific progress, technological change, transport of dangerous goods








C_2014102EN.01003004.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/30





Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-321/13) (1)

2014/C 102/48
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Council Decision 2013/515/CFSP of 21 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Guinea, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, military equipment, removal, trade restriction




L_2013280EN.01002501.xml










22.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 280/25








            COUNCIL DECISION 2013/515/CFSP
of 21 October 2013
         
amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Whereas:







(1)


On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP (1).












(2)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be extended until 27 October 2014.












(3)


Decision 2010/638/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 8 of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   This Decision shall apply until 27 October 2014. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.



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




Done at Luxembourg, 21 October 2013.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 10).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Fürstentum Liechtenstein dated 21 October 2013 in the case of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (Case E-23/13)
Date: 2013-10-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Greece, capital market, insider trading, restriction on competition








C_2014081EN.01001101.xml










20.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/11





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Fürstentum Liechtenstein dated 21 October 2013 in the case of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission
(Case E-23/13)
2014/C 81/10
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 21 October 2013 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Fürstentum Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 October 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, on the following question:
Must an authority making a request to the competent authority of another Member State in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC set out in its request the facts that give rise to the suspicion that the prohibition on insider dealing and market manipulation has been infringed?