do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-69/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative court, primacy of EU law, principle of legal certainty








C_2014142EN.01001501.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor
(Case C-69/14)
2014/C 142/20
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

Defendants: Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor

Question referred

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principle of legal certainty laid down in European Union law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that found in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 which allows for revision of national judicial decisions when there is an infringement of the principle of the primacy of [European Union] law exclusively in administrative proceedings and which does not allow for revision of national judicial decisions delivered in proceedings other than administrative proceedings (civil or criminal proceedings) when there is an infringement of the same principle of primacy of [European Union] law at issue in those decisions?
Case C-67/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of persons, job access, residence permit, social-security benefit








C_2014142EN.01001402.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others
(Case C-67/14)
2014/C 142/19
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln

Respondents: Nazifa Alimanovic, Sonita Alimanovic, Valentina Alimanovic, Valentino Alimanovic

Questions referred







1.


Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) — with the exception of the clause in Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence — also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 70(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) which do not under any circumstances allow access to those benefits in the case where the right of residence of the European Union citizen from another Member State arises solely out of the search for employment, and, if so, to what extent may that principle be so limited?










3.


Does Article 45(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, preclude a national provision which does not under any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit which is intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market to European Union citizens who can invoke the exercise of their right of free movement as job-seekers in the case where those citizens enjoy a right of residence arising solely out of the search for employment, irrespective of their link with the host Member State?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
Case C-74/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer system, information system, price agreement, reduced price








C_2014142EN.01001602.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — UAB Eturas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
(Case C-74/14)
2014/C 142/22
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: UAB Eturas and Others

Respondent: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Lithuanian Competition Council)

Interested third parties: UAB Aviaeuropa, UAB Grand Voyage, UAB Kalnų upė, UAB Keliautojų klubas, UAB Smaragdas travel, UAB 700LT, UAB Aljus ir Ko, UAB Gustus vitae, UAB Tropikai, UAB Vipauta, UAB Vistus

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which economic operators participate in a common computerised information system of the type described in this case and the Competition Council has proved that a system notice on the restriction of discounts and a technical restriction on discount rate entry were introduced into that system, it can be assumed that those economic operators were aware, or must have been aware, of the system notice introduced into the computerised information system and, by failing to oppose the application of such a discount restriction, expressed their tacit approval of the price discount restriction and for that reason may be held liable for engaging in concerted practices under Article 101(1) TFEU?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in the determination as to whether economic operators participating in a common computerised information system, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, have engaged in concerted practices within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU?
Case T-93/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — St'art and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, consortium, legality, liability








C_2014135EN.01005101.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/51






Action brought on 10 February 2014 — St'art and Others v Commission
(Case T-93/14)
(2014/C 135/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measure:






—


namely the decision of an unknown date formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission to reclaim the sum of EUR 140 500,01 from the company EDC in the context of the tender ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to require, if necessary, for that purpose, the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.








1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and inter alia of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of lawfulness, in so far as the Commission’s decision to recover the advances paid to the company EDC in the context of the project ‘C-I Factor’ and to claim the joint and several liability of the applicants, members of the consortium, in that regard is based on an unlawful decision to terminate the subsidy contract.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. The applicants also complain that the Commission did not give them the opportunity to carry out, themselves, the obligations arising from the contract in order to remedy any possible shortcomings of the company EDC.
Case C-63/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2014135EN.01002201.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/22






Action brought on 10 February 2014 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-63/14)
(2014/C 135/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the recipient the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation, (1) in not having annulled, within the prescribed periods, all the aid payments referred to in that Article 2(1) and in not having informed the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision;










—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit within which the French Republic should have recovered the aid illegally paid to the SNCM expired four months after notification of the decision.


(1)  
            OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20.
Case T-101/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — British Aggregates v Commission
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, equal treatment, tax exemption








C_2014112EN.01005201.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/52





Action brought on 10 February 2014 — British Aggregates v Commission
(Case T-101/14)
2014/C 112/67
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and L. Geary, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission Decision of 31 July 2013 C(2013) 4901 final published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 November 2013 in Case SA.34775 (ex N863/2001) — Aggregates Levy;










—


Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that three exemptions under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and therefore do not result in State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the Commission has not explained why the different treatment of similar situations does not constitute State aid. Further, the reasoning put forward by the Commission is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed its duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, as this is not a case where the Commission can reach a firm view that a measure does not result in aid, without necessitating a detailed examination of the matter.
Case T-36/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014  — St’art and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, consortium, legality, liability








C_2014135EN.01004201.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/42






Action brought on 15 January 2014 — St’art and Others v Commission
(Case T-36/14)
(2014/C 135/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measures:






—


either the European Commission’s decision of an unknown date to terminate the project ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to end, as a consequence, the award of the subsidy granted to the consortium created by the applicants;










—


or the decision confirming that, adopted on 29 November 2013;














—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the lawyers’ fees and pre-trial work.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to be treated fairly and of the general principle that agreements and contractual terms and conditions must be performed in good faith, in so far as the reasoning provided by the Commission is incorrect and or none of the terms and conditions for terminating the contract are met. The applicants claim that the fact that the objectives which the project was to meet were met by other means, thereby depriving the project of its objective, is not a valid reason to terminate the subsidy contract.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 130/2014 of 10 February 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Selles-sur-Cher (PDO)]
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, designation of origin, goats’ milk cheese, product designation








L_2014041EN.01000101.xml










12.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 41/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 130/2014
of 10 February 2014
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Selles-sur-Cher (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)


By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Selles-sur-Cher’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 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, 10 February 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 L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ C 179, 25.6.2013, p. 33.




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

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

FRANCE
Selles-sur-Cher (PDO)
Case C-96/13: Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 10 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, Internet site, database, equal treatment, help desk, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, provision of services, social security








C_2014184EN.01002304.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/23





Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 10 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-96/13) (1)

2014/C 184/36
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.
Council Decision 2014/74/CFSP of 10 February 2014 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Syria, capital movement, chemical weapon, economic sanctions, international sanctions, non-proliferation of arms








L_2014040EN.01006301.xml










11.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 40/63








            COUNCIL DECISION 2014/74/CFSP
of 10 February 2014
         
amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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


Having regard to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1),

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP.












(2)


It is necessary to introduce in Decision 2013/255/CFSP an exemption from the asset freeze to allow the release of funds and economic resources of the Central Bank of Syria and of Syrian State-owned entities in order to make payments on behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for activities related to the OPCW verification mission and the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, and in particular to the OPCW Syrian Special Trust Fund for activities related to the complete destruction of Syrian chemical weapons outside the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.












(3)


Further action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures.












(4)


Decision 2013/255/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 28(3) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, the following point is added:






‘(h)


intended for the Central Bank of Syria or Syrian State-owned entities, as listed in Annex I and II, to make payments on behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic to the OPCW for activities related to the OPCW verification mission and the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, and in particular to the OPCW Syrian Special Trust Fund for activities related to the complete destruction of Syrian chemical weapons outside the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.’.






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




Done at Brussels, 10 February 2014.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.