do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, gas, petroleum








C_2013353EN.01000901.xml










3.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 353/9





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2013/C 353/04
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 125

The following text is added after paragraph 2711‘Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons’:







‘2711 19 00




Other

This subheading includes liquefied gas obtained from biomass.
This liquefied gas results from the fermentation of the biodegradable fraction of industrial, household or municipal waste and residues, of wastewater treatment plants sludge, of the biodegradable fraction of agricultural and forestry waste and residues, of waste and residues of the agrifood industry and of other similar vegetal and animal raw materials obtained from biomass.
The composition of this gas is predominately methane, with, generally, carbon dioxide, and, to a lesser extent, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present.





2711 29 00




Other

This subheading includes gas (in gaseous state) obtained from biomass.
This gas results from the fermentation of the biodegradable fraction of industrial, household or municipal waste and residues, of wastewater treatment plants sludge, of the biodegradable fraction of agricultural and forestry waste and residues, of waste and residues of the agrifood industry and of other similar vegetal and animal raw materials obtained from biomass.
The composition of this gas is predominately methane, with, generally, carbon dioxide, and, to a lesser extent, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Case F-36/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — CT v EACEA (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Termination — Adverse reflection on position — Breakdown in the relationship of trust)
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), severance pay, termination of a contract








C_2014024EN.01003901.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/39





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — CT v EACEA
(Case F-36/13) (1)

(Civil Service - Temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination - Adverse reflection on position - Breakdown in the relationship of trust)
2014/C 24/71
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CT (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment on the basis of Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CT to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 58.
Case T-159/12: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL) (Removal from the register — Pleading submitted at the time of discontinuance — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014039EN.01002002.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/20





Order of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)
(Case T-159/12) (1)

(Removal from the register - Pleading submitted at the time of discontinuance - Inadmissibility)
2014/C 39/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Pri SA (Clémency, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and F. Márquez Martín, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: J. Bouyssou, lawyer)

Re:

Firstly, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case R 311/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Pri SA and Belgravia Investment Group Ltd, and, secondly, application for rejection of the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods covered by the opposition proceedings.

Operative part of the order







1.


Case T-159/12 shall be removed from the register of the General Court.










2.


The pleading lodged by Pri SA, contained in the letter filed at the Registry of the General Court on 13 September 2013, requesting, firstly, that the General Court state that the opposition was withdrawn; secondly, that it rescind the decision of the Opposition Division of 7 December 2010 in so far as it rejects in part the opposition; and, thirdly, that it order that the ‘release in full’ of the mark PRONOKAL be registered are rejected as inadmissible.










3.


Pri SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.










4.


Belgravia Investment Group Ltd shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Ukraine: modification of the name of a company subject to individual anti-dumping duties
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ukraine, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), iron, originating product, registration of a company, steel, tube








C_2013353EN.01001401.xml










3.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 353/14





Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Ukraine: modification of the name of a company subject to individual anti-dumping duties
2013/C 353/07
Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Ukraine, are subject to anti-dumping duties under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 795/2012 (1).
OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 13,8 % for imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel under Regulation (EU) No 795/2012.
On 29 May 2013, the company informed the Commission that its name has changed due to a legislative change in Ukraine. This change has affected the abbreviation of the legal denomination of the company.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name does not affect the findings of the Council Regulation mentioned above. Therefore, the reference to OJSC ‘Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant’ should be read as PJSC ‘Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant’ in Regulation (EU) No 795/2012.
The TARIC additional code A743 previously attributed to OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant in Regulation (EU) No 795/2012 shall apply to PJSC ‘Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant’.


(1)  OJ L 238, 4.9.2012, p. 1.
Case T-643/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, dissemination of information








C_2014045EN.01003902.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/39





Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission
(Case T-643/13)
2014/C 45/69
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 25 September 2013 (Ref GestDem No 2013/1504), and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Right of access to the contested documents and lack of grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)







—


The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist.










—


The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists.










—


The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013.










—


The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE.














2.


Procedural irregularity






—


The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision.










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Case C-633/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet access provider, price control, regulation of telecommunications, telephone, telephone charges








C_2014071EN.01000701.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
(Case C-633/13)
(2014/C 71/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of obligations relating to price controls, national regulatory authorities may impose on operators with significant market power an obligation consisting in a prohibition on the application of excessive voice call termination rates in the telephone network of such operators?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.
Case C-639/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT rate, fire protection, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2014045EN.01002301.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/23





Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-639/13)
2014/C 45/39
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to goods intended to provide fire protection, mentioned in Annex 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission submits that the Republic of Poland applies a reduced rate of VAT to goods which are not mentioned in Annex III to the directive. Those goods, however, require to be taxed at the standard rate as they cannot come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 98(2) of the directive. In addition, the argument set out by Poland is related exclusively to economic policy and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing legal justification for breaching the provisions of the directive. In the Commission’s view, there can therefore be no doubt that the provisions of Polish law have not been adapted to the requirements of the directive.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-573/11: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — JAS v Commission (Customs union — Imports of denim jeans — Fraud — Recovery a posteriori of the import duties — Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Article 239 of the Customs Code — Application for remission of import duties — Particular case — Equity clause — Commission Decision)
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: customs fraud, customs union, import (EU), textile product








C_2014024EN.01001902.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/19





Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — JAS v Commission
(Case T-573/11) (1)

(Customs union - Imports of denim jeans - Fraud - Recovery a posteriori of the import duties - Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 239 of the Customs Code - Application for remission of import duties - Particular case - Equity clause - Commission Decision)
2014/C 24/33
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (Mesnil-Amelot, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, L. Keppenne and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 5 August 2011 finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2008).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jet Air Services France (JAS) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case C-632/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, tax on income, tax system








C_2014031EN.01000602.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen
(Case C-632/13)
2014/C 31/09
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

Question referred

Does Article 45 TFEU preclude provisions in a Member State’s legislation which mean that a person resident in another Member State — who receives all or almost all his income from the first Member State — can choose between two entirely different systems of taxation, that is to say, either to be taxed at source at a lower tax rate but without the right to such tax relief as is applicable under the ordinary income tax system, or to be taxed on his income under the latter system and thus be able to benefit from the tax relief in question?
Case T-648/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001001.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/10





Action brought on 3 December 2013 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)
(Case T-648/13)
2014/C 61/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IOIP Holdings LLC (Fort Wayne, United States of America) (represented by: H. Dhondt and S. Kinart, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonization 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 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1028/2013-2;










—


Order the Office to register the Community trade mark applied for;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GLISTEN’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 11 305 273

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013353EN.01000601.xml










3.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 353/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 December 2013
2013/C 353/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3536




JPY


Japanese yen


139,16




DKK


Danish krone


7,4598




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82605




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8904




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2321




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3095




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,407




HUF


Hungarian forint


302,20




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7030




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1928




RON


Romanian leu


4,4360




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7524




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4812




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4387




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4934




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6507




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6985




KRW


South Korean won


1 432,49




ZAR


South African rand


13,8223




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2479




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6338




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 931,87




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3437




PHP


Philippine peso


59,177




RUB


Russian rouble


44,9057




THB


Thai baht


43,505




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1645




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7877




INR


Indian rupee


84,3560






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-641/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Gemeente Bergen op Zoom v Commission
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, business park, infringement of EU law, local government, restriction on competition








C_2014031EN.01001801.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/18





Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Gemeente Bergen op Zoom v Commission
(Case T-641/13)
2014/C 31/30
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Gemeente Bergen op Zoom (Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Hovius and R. Pasma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2013, (1) whereby the Commission found that the purchase by the Bergen op Zoom municipality of the industrial premises of Koninklijke Nedalco BV and Nedalco International BV did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107 TFEU and/or Article 108 TFEU in so far as the Commission failed to apply the market economy investor principle or, at least, applied that principle incorrectly, did not rely on the proper facts in that regard and/or did not provide sufficient reasons for the application of that principle.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107 TFEU and/or Article 108 TFEU in so far as the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts and/or the law and committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that Nedalco had not been granted a (selective) advantage that it could not have acquired in the ordinary course of business.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles relating to the duty of care and the duty to state reasons in so far as the Commission erred in failing to investigate the facts put forward by the municipality and/or to provide sound reasons for the decision.






(1)  OJ 2013 C 335, p. 1.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2013353EN.01001001.xml










3.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 353/10





Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 353/05






Member State


Portugal




Concerned route


Porto Santo–Funchal–Porto Santo




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


From 1 June 2014




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained







Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil, I.P.




Rua B, Edifícios 4.o, 5.o e 6.o — Aeroporto de Lisboa




1749-034 Lisboa




PORTUGAL




Tel. +351 218423500




Fax +351 218423582




Internet: http://www.vortalGOV.pt




E-mail: concurso.osp@inac.pt