do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Egypt, capital movement, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2014082EN.01000301.xml










21.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/3





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt
2014/C 82/03
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who are designated in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 should continue to apply to those persons.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 30 January 2015, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's next review, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, of the list of designated persons.
Case C-135/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Mayotte, derogation from EU law, legal basis, peripheral region








C_2014175EN.01002602.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/26





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-135/14)
2014/C 175/33
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1)











—


maintain the effects of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 until the entry into force of a new regulation based on appropriate legal bases.










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 that the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that regulation although the Commission had proposed that the act be based on sector-specific legal bases, namely Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) TFEU.
It submits that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested regulation, Article 349 TFEU cannot legitimately be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU can be applied only when it involves derogation from the principle of application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the regulation at issue, without derogating from the Treaties, merely adapts secondary law to respond to the situation created by the change of the status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, as well as by the historical origins of that article.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86.
Case T-11/07 RENV: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2014  — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Spirit and spirit-based beverages — Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — Decision repealing and replacing the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, control of State aid, financial solvency, tax debt write-off








C_2014159EN.01002401.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/24





Order of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
(Case T-11/07 RENV) (1)

((State aid - Spirit and spirit-based beverages - Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - Decision repealing and replacing the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))
2014/C 159/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Fruncona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14)

Operative part of the order







1)


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2)


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Frucona Košice a.s.










3)


St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014082EN.01000401.xml










21.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 March 2014
2014/C 82/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3762




JPY


Japanese yen


140,85




DKK


Danish krone


7,4643




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83455




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8576




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2190




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3705




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,488




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,36




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2026




RON


Romanian leu


4,4935




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0790




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5257




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5507




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6845




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6159




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7574




KRW


South Korean won


1 489,35




ZAR


South African rand


15,0556




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5718




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6628




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 819,99




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5365




PHP


Philippine peso


62,322




RUB


Russian rouble


49,7040




THB


Thai baht


44,754




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2295




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2828




INR


Indian rupee


84,4058






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-136/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Mayotte, derogation from EU law, economic situation, environmental protection, farming sector, legal basis, peripheral region, public health, social policy, social situation








C_2014175EN.01002701.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/27





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-136/14)
2014/C 175/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Council Directives 91/271/EEC and 1999/74/EC, and Directives 2000/60/EC, 2006/7/EC, 2006/25/EC and 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1)











—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament seeks annulment of Directive 2013/64/EU which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
According to the Parliament, the legal basis chosen by the Council is incorrect, on the ground that the measures provided for in the contested directive come under the responsibilities of the European Union pursuant to various common policies. Those measures should therefore have been adopted under sector-specific legal bases concerning the areas of environment, agriculture, social policy and public health, namely Articles 43(2), 114, 153(2), 168 and 192(1) TFEU and not on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.
For the Parliament, measures which are not designed to deal with the economic or social constraints which an outermost region is facing by means of derogation from the full application of EU law in the region concerned cannot legitimately be based on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU. Accordingly, measures which merely seek to postpone the application of certain provisions of EU law to an outermost region do not fall within the scope of that Article.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 353, p. 8.
Case T-193/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014151EN.01003201.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/32





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)
(Case T-193/14)
2014/C 151/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, United States)

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 10 January 2014 given in Case R 96/2013-4.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AERONAUTICA’ for goods in services in Classes 9, 18, 20, 25, 35, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 508 237

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several earlier Community and UK trade mark registrations of the word marks ‘NAUTICA’ and ‘NAUTICA BLUE’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.