do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 242/2014 of 7 March 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lammefjordskartofler (PGI))
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, Sjælland (region), designation of origin, labelling, potato, product designation








L_2014074EN.01002701.xml










14.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 74/27








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 242/2014
of 7 March 2014
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lammefjordskartofler (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)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Denmark’s application to register the name ‘Lammefjordskartofler’ 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 ‘Lammefjordskartofler’ 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, 7 March 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 286, 2.1.2013, p. 3.




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

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

DENMARK
Lammefjordskartofler (PGI)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 226/2014 of 7 March 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Umbria (PDO)]
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Umbria, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2014070EN.01001201.xml










11.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 70/12








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 226/2014
of 7 March 2014
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Umbria (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)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Umbria’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2325/97 (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, 7 March 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 322, 25.11.1997, p. 33.

(3)  
            OJ C 262, 11.9.2013, p. 6.




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

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

ITALY
Umbria (PDO)
Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — Eni v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, rubber industry








C_2014135EN.01003602.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/36






Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission
(Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))
(2014/C 135/46)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

Re:

In Case T-240/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-211/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

Operative part of the order







1.


Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.










3.


Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Case T-156/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014135EN.01005801.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/58






Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)
(Case T-156/14)
(2014/C 135/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 in Case R 1335/2013-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘StartUp’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 11 792 009
         

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case F-19/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, transfer of pension rights








C_2014184EN.01004102.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/41





Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-19/14)
2014/C 184/68
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme by application of the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


Annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, as part of the transfer of those pension rights into the Pension Scheme of the European Institutions (‘PSEUI’) by application of the general implementing provisions (‘GIPs’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, State aid, aid for restructuring, control of State aid, financial institution, liquidation








C_2014069EN.01002901.xml










7.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/29





Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 69/02






Date of adoption of the decision


19.7.2013




Reference number of the aid


SA.32745 (11/MC)




Member State


Austria




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


State support for the run-off of Kommunalkredit Austria AG




Type of decision


New decision related to the following Commission decision: SA.32745 (11/NN)




Content


Other adaptation




Other information


Approval of additional aid




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case T-154/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014  — ANKO v Commission
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contractual liability, misuse of a right, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, works contract








C_2014175EN.01004601.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/46





Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission
(Case T-154/14)
2014/C 175/63
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the entire amount of EUR 185 664,10 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the OASIS project and the entire amount of EUR 465 062,84 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs;










—


Declare that the amount of EUR 1 824,05 which the Commission has not paid in respect of the OASIS project and the amount of EUR 637 117,17 which the Commission has not paid as a portion in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs and consequently the Commission is under an obligation to pay those sums to ΑΝΚΟ, and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 215 754 and (b) 215 952 for the performance of the (a) OASIS and (b) PERFORM projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.
In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs and refused to pay its outstanding portion. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection as constituting ineligible costs of almost all of the Commission’s portion in respect of the OASIS and PERFORM projects is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover almost all of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.
Case T-155/14: Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014  — ANKO v Commission.
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contractual liability, misuse of a right, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, works contract








C_2014175EN.01004602.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/46





Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission.
(Case T-155/14)
2014/C 175/64
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the entire amount of EUR 325 823,16 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERSONA project and the entire amount of EUR 280 747,45 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid in respect of the TERREGOV project constitute eligible costs;










—


Declare that the amount of EUR 6 752,74 constitutes eligible costs incurred by ΑΝΚΟ in the context of the PERSONA project and, consequently that the Commission is under an obligation to make payment to ΑΝΚΟ;·










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 045 459 and (b) 507 749 for the performance of the (a) PERSONA and (b) TERREGOV projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.
In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection of the eligibility of almost all the sums which the Commission paid in respect of the PERSONA and TERREGOV projects and the attempt to recover those sums as improperly paid is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover the whole of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.
Case C-112/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, capital gains tax, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, organisation, tax avoidance, tax evasion








C_2014184EN.01001101.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/11





Action brought on 7 March 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-112/14)
2014/C 184/14
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, L. Armati, agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning attribution of gains to members of non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA;










—


order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments



The national legislation in issue


Section 13 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 provides that where certain types of non-resident company earn profits, those profits are immediately taxable in the hands of shareholders and other participators who are residents of the United Kingdom, whether or not the latter in fact receive any income.


The main argument


UK residents are liable for tax on the profits of certain non-resident companies in which they are participators, while would not be so liable if the companies concerned were resident in the United Kingdom. That difference in taxation is likely to discourage UK taxpayers from investing in such non-resident companies, contrary to Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 EEA.
The measure in issue may prevent certain types of tax avoidance and abuse. However, its application is not limited to hypotheses of tax avoidance or abuse and the measure is therefore not justified.
Case T-165/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014  — ANKO v Commission and REA
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contractual liability, misuse of a right, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, works contract








C_2014175EN.01004701.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/47





Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA
(Case T-165/14)
2014/C 175/65
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the suspension of payment which was imposed and is maintained by the REA acting under powers delegated to it by the Commission in respect of the amount which the Commission remains liable to pay to the applicant as its portion in respect of the ESS project is a breach of the latter’s contractual obligations;










—


Declare that the amount of EUR 125 253,82 which the Commission continues not to have paid as its portion in respect of the ESS project constitutes eligible costs and, consequently, the Commission is under an obligation to pay it to ΑΝΚΟ;










—


Declare that the entire amount of EUR 216 172,68 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant as its portion in respect of the ESS project constitutes eligible costs,·and










—


Order the REA and the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the REA and the Commission under the contract No 217 951 for the performance of the ESS project, under Article 272 TFEU.
In particular, the applicant maintains that the REA, acting under powers delegated to it by the Commission, without any justification and in the breach of the ESS project agreement, suspended payment to ΑΝΚΟ. Further, the applicant maintains that the Commission, by seeking to apply the ‘extrapolation’ method, disputed, without any legal basis and in breach of both the agreement and of applicable law, the eligibility of almost the whole of the costs declared by ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the ESS project.
Case T-134/10: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — FESI v Council (Action for annulment  — Dumping  — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao  — Association representing independent importers  — Lack of individual concern  — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures  — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Macao, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2014135EN.01003401.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/34






Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — FESI v Council
(Case T-134/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - Dumping - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao - Association representing independent importers - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
(2014/C 135/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Vermulst and Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 1996 L 352, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.