do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 49/2014 of 13 January 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Miel de Tenerife (PDO)]
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canary Islands, Spain, designation of origin, honey, labelling, product designation








L_2014016EN.01000901.xml










21.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 16/9








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 49/2014
of 13 January 2014
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Miel de Tenerife (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)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Miel de Tenerife’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Miel de Tenerife’ 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, 13 January 2014.


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 C 235, 14.8.2013, p. 5.




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

Class 1.4.   Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.)

SPAIN
Miel de Tenerife (PDO)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 48/2014 of 13 January 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Châtaigne d'Ardèche (PDO)]
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, designation of origin, nut, product designation








L_2014016EN.01000701.xml










21.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 16/7








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 48/2014
of 13 January 2014
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Châtaigne d'Ardèche (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)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Châtaigne d'Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Châtaigne d'Ardèche’ 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, 13 January 2014.


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 C 235, 14.8.2013, p. 13.




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

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

FRANCE
Châtaigne d’Ardèche (PDO)
Case F-4/14: Action brought on 13 January 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, dismissal, indemnification, probationary period








C_2014061EN.01002202.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/22





Action brought on 13 January 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-4/14)
2014/C 61/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 announcing his dismissal;










—


set the amount of EUR 35 000, together with default interest, which the European Parliament is under an obligation to pay him should his re-instatement meet with insurmountable legal obstacles;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Case C-9/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014  — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. G. Kieback
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: frontier worker, pay, tax on income, third country








C_2014102EN.01001402.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. G. Kieback
(Case C-9/14)
2014/C 102/19
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: D. G. Kieback

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 39 EC be interpreted as meaning that the Member State where a taxable person engages in paid employment is, when charging income tax, to take the personal and family circumstances of the interested party into account in circumstances where (i) that taxable person only worked for a part of the tax year in that Member State while living in another Member State, (ii) he received all, or almost all, of his income for that period in that State of employment, (iii) he has left, in the course of the relevant year, to live and work in another State, and (iv) when the tax year is considered as a whole, he did not receive all, or almost all, of his income in the first-mentioned State of employment?










2.


Does it make a difference to the answer to the first question whether the State where the worker has gone to live and work during the course of the tax year is not a Member State of the European Union?
Case T-43/14: Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, management training, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01002202.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/22






Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)
(Case T-43/14)
(2014/C 129/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation 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 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 October 2013 given in Case R 338/2013-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY’ for services in Classes 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 11 031 457
         

Decision of the Examiner: Refused to register the trade mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) CTMR.
2014/10/EU: Council Decision of 13 January 2014 appointing a Swedish member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, Sweden, appointment of members








L_2014010EN.01001701.xml










15.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 10/17








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 13 January 2014
         
appointing a Swedish member of the European Economic and Social Committee
(2014/10/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).












(2)


A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Ellen NYGREN,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Lise-Lotte LENBERG is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 January 2014.


For the Council


The President

D. KOURKOULAS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-5/14)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, national implementing measure, waste management








C_2014163EN.01001001.xml










28.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/10





Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-5/14)
(2014/C 163/09)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case T-475/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, scanner, software, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01003602.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/36





Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)
(Case T-475/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
2014/C 52/68
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark WorkflowPilot as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LaserSoft Imaging AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
Case T-30/14: Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO — INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX — PROPRE FABRICATION)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014085EN.01002202.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/22





Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO — INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX — PROPRE FABRICATION)
(Case T-30/14)
2014/C 85/39
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger und M. Zöbisch, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4 and authorise the publication of the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 11 642 527 for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4 and refer the case back to the Office so that it adopts a new decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white, including the word elements ‘BIO — INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX — PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 an 35 — application for registration of Community trade mark No 11 642 527

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-4/14)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, fireworks, infringement of EU law, marketing standard








C_2014163EN.01000901.xml










28.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/9





Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-4/14)
(2014/C 163/08)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Joined Cases T-116/13 P and T-117/13 P: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Lebedef v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Reports — Career development report — 2008 and 2009 evaluation period — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff evaluation reports covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Designation for union purpose — Actions dismissed at first instance as manifestly unfounded — Appeal dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, part-time employment, reassignment, report, union representative








C_2014071EN.01002102.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/21






Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Lebedef v Commission
(Joined Cases T-116/13 P and T-117/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Reports - Career development report - 2008 and 2009 evaluation period - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff evaluation reports covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Designation for union purpose - Actions dismissed at first instance as manifestly unfounded - Appeal dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded)
(2014/C 71/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Two appeals brought against the orders of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012, in Case F 70/11 Lebedef v Commission and in Case F 109/11 Lebedef v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking an order that those orders be set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeals are dismissed.










2.


Mr Giorgio Lebedef will bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.






(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case C-10/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — J.B.G.T. Miljoen; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, deduction at source, residence permit, shareholding, tax on income








C_2014129EN.01000901.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — J.B.G.T. Miljoen; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-10/14)
(2014/C 129/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: J.B.G.T. Miljoen

Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case such as the present, in which dividend tax was withheld on a dividend payment by the source State, be extended to the income tax payable on the dividend income, against which, in the case of residents, the dividend tax is set off?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the assessment as to whether the effective tax burden for a non-resident is heavier than the tax burden for a resident, should a comparison be made between the Netherlands dividend tax withheld in respect of the non-resident and the Netherlands income tax payable by a resident, calculated in respect of the flat-rate income which, in the year in which the dividends were received, is attributable to the total holding of investment shares in Netherlands companies, or does European Union law require that a different standard of comparison be taken into account?
Case C-11/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2014 by Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2013 in Case T-476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl v Italian Republic
Date: 2014-01-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, fine, professional sport








C_2014245EN.01000201.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/2





Appeal brought on 13 January 2014 by Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2013 in Case T-476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl v Italian Republic
(Case C-11/14 P)
2014/C 245/02
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl (represented by: N. Russo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic
By order of 30 April 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.