do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-578/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission
Date: 2013-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, market approval, marketing standard, plant health control, plant health product








C_2014045EN.01003501.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/35





Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission
(Case T-578/13)
2014/C 45/60
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


Annul the contested decision; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision of 8 October 2013, notified to the applicants on 9 October 2013, concerning the publication of certain parts of the Peer Review Report and Final Addendum on Potassium Phosphonates in respect of which the Applicants claimed confidentiality pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 (2) (the ‘Contested Decision’).
In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims.






(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p.1)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ L 53, p.51)
Case C-568/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service srl
Date: 2013-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free competition, invitation to tender, medical institution, principle of proportionality, public institution, public service, restriction on competition








C_2014052EN.01002502.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service srl
(Case C-568/13)
2014/C 52/45
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze

Respondent: Data Medical Service srl

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 1 of Directive 50/1992, (1) read also in the light of the later Article 1(8) of Directive 18/2004, (2) preclude a national rule which was interpreted as excluding the appellant in the present proceedings, by dint of the fact that it is a commercially-run hospital characterisable as a public economic entity, from participating in tendering procedures?










2.


Does European Union law on public procurement — in particular, the general principles of freedom of competition, non-discrimination and proportionality — preclude a national rule under which a body like the appellant hospital, which receives public funding on a permanent basis and is directly contracted to provide a public service, is able to derive from that situation a decisive competitive advantage over rival economic operators, as demonstrated by the size of the discount offered, in circumstances in which corrective measures have not been put in place at the same time in order to prevent that kind of distortion of competition?






(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2013 of 6 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (PGI)]
Date: 2013-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, citrus fruit, designation of origin, product designation








L_2013299EN.01001801.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 299/18








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1117/2013
of 6 November 2013
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (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 the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Arancia Rossa di Sicilia’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3).












(3)


Since the amendments in question are not minor, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As no statement of objection under Article 7 of that Regulation has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.


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, 6 November 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 L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ C 369, 29.11.2012, p. 16.




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

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

ITALY
Arancia Rossa di Sicilia (PGI)
Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
Date: 2013-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, floor coverings, import (EU), infringement of EU law, originating product, rights of the defence








C_2014015EN.01001001.xml










18.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
(Case C-569/13)
2014/C 15/14
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bricmate AB

Defendant: Tullverket

Questions referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:






1.


that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact,










2.


that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment,










3.


that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51),










4.


that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence,










5.


that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or










6.


that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?






(1)  OJ L 238, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.