do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Implementing Decision 2014/271/CFSP of 12 May 2014 implementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2014138EN.01010801.xml










13.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 138/108








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2014/271/CFSP
of 12 May 2014
         
implementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.












(2)


The Council carried out a review of the measures referred to in point (b) of Article 4(1) and in point (b) of Article 5(1) of Decision 2010/656/CFSP, in accordance with Article 10(3) of that Decision.












(3)


The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.












(4)


In addition, the information in relation to two persons on the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be updated.












(5)


Decision 2010/656/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.


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, 12 May 2014.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28.




ANNEX
Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP is amended as follows:






I.


The entry for the following person is replaced by the following:








 


Name (and any aliases)


Identifying information


Grounds for designation




4.


Marcel Gossio


Born 18 February 1951 in Adjamé. Passport number: 08AA14345 (presumed expired on 6 October 2013)


Subject of an international arrest warrant. Involved in the misappropriation of public funds and in the funding and arming of the militia.
Instrumental to the funding of the Gbagbo clan and of the militia. Also a central figure in illegal arms trafficking.
The sizeable sums of money he has misappropriated and his familiarity with the illegal arms networks make him a continued threat to the security and stability of Côte d'Ivoire.














II.


The entry for the following person is renamed as follows:

                  ‘Justin Koné Katina’ is replaced by ‘Justin Koné Katinan’
               










III.


The entry for the following person is deleted:
Oulaï Delafosse
Case C-232/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, import (EU), originating product








C_2014235EN.01000901.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-232/14)
2014/C 235/12
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

Is the contested Regulation (Council Regulation No 412/2013 (1)) incompatible with EU law in so far as it






i.


is based on manifest errors of assessment with respect to the definition of the product concerned, thereby invalidating the conclusions of the anti-dumping investigation; and










ii.


lacks adequate reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU?






(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China

OJ L 131, p. 1
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 135, 5.5.2014
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014142EN.01000101.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/1





2014/C 142/01
Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union



OJ C 135, 5.5.2014



Past publications


OJ C 129, 28.4.2014


OJ C 112, 14.4.2014


OJ C 102, 7.4.2014


OJ C 93, 29.3.2014


OJ C 85, 22.3.2014


OJ C 78, 15.3.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-207/12 P P: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Act following a request to place a document on the file compiled for the purposes of examining the application for recognition of an incident suffered by the appellant — Absence of act having adverse effect — preparatory act — Informative measure — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, medical data, occupational accident, provision of documents, trauma








C_2014212EN.01003002.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/30





Order of the General Court of 12 May 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-207/12 P P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Act following a request to place a document on the file compiled for the purposes of examining the application for recognition of an incident suffered by the appellant - Absence of act having adverse effect - preparatory act - Informative measure - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part))
2014/C 212/38
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party/parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Case C-236/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy consumption, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment, renewable energy








C_2014212EN.01002201.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/22





Action brought on 12 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-236/14)
2014/C 212/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Herrmann, L. Armati, agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


Declare that by failing to adopt provisions transposing the definitions laid down in Article 2, letters (f), (h), (m), (n) and (o), and the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) and (4), Article 5, Article 13(1), letters (a) to (e), Article 15(6), letter (e), Article 16(1), (3), (5), (6), (7), second sentence, and (8), Article 17 (1) to (5), Article 17(6) regarding bioliquids, Article 17(8), Article 18(1) and (3) regarding biolquids, Article 18(7), Article 19(1) and (3), Article 21(1), second sentence, and Annexes II to V and VII of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that Directive;










—


Impose a penalty payment on Ireland pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU in the amount of EUR 25  447,50 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court and payable to the account of the Union's own resources, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure; and










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 5 December 2010.


(1)  OJ L 140, p. 16
Case C-234/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 12 May 2014  — SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’ v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, partnership, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2014212EN.01002101.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 12 May 2014 — SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’ v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs
(Case C-234/14)
2014/C 212/24
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’

Defendants: Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as meaning that, in order to reduce the risk of non-performance of the contract, they do not preclude the specifications from containing the condition that, in the event of the contract being awarded to a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other contractors, that tenderer must, before the contract is awarded, conclude with those undertakings a cooperation agreement (which includes the particular items set out in the specifications), or set up a partnership with them?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114
Case T-321/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014212EN.01003901.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/39





Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)
(Case T-321/14)
2014/C 212/51
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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2014 in Case R 2025/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘STREET’ for goods in Classes 12, 28 and 35

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-331/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Azarov v Council
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, equal treatment, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, rule of law








C_2014223EN.01006201.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/62





Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-331/14)
2014/C 223/64
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


Prescribe, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, measures of organisation of procedure;










—


Order the Council, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the statement of reasons for the contested acts do not make it possible either for him to challenge those acts before the Court or for the Court to review their legality.










2.


Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the right to exercise an economic activity. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.










3.


Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the Council misused its powers because the imposition of restrictive measures against him predominantly pursued objectives other than those of actually consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.










4.


Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of good administration
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of infringement of the right to impartial treatment, infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.










5.


Fifth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment.
Case T-350/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Arvanitis and Others v European Parliament and Others
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of EU law, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, damages, severance pay, temporary employment








C_2014439EN.01002801.xml










8.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/28





Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Arvanitis and Others v European Parliament and Others
(Case T-350/14)
(2014/C 439/38)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: Athanasios Arvanitis (Rhodes, Greece) and 47 other applicants (represented by: K. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


declare that the defendants failed to legislate so that the general principles of EU law, and in particular the directive on fixed-term work, apply fully upon their dismissal from the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia that was imposed by decision of the European Commission and incorporated into Greek law by Law No 3717/2008;










—


grant the applicants and all the dismissed employees of the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act the ability to receive the compensation to which they would have been entitled as permanent employees upon their compulsory dismissal/departure from Olimpiaki Aeroporia;










—


grant compensation of EUR 3 00  000 by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act to each of the applicants for the hardship and distress that they have suffered, the gross breach of their fundamental rights and the premature cessation of their working life.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea: Law No 3717/2008, which provided for the closure of Olimpiaki Aeroporia and the dismissal of all its temporary employees, is a purely Community measure that in essence was imposed by the institutions of the European Union, in particular the ECB and the European Commission, and all the legislative measures of the Greek Government were adopted on the recommendation and, to be more precise, after decision of the Eurogroup, ECOFIN, the ECB and the European Commission.










2.


Second plea: the failure to equate the dismissed temporary employees/workers of the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia with the other, permanent, employees of Olimpiaki Aeroporia and the failure to compensate them expressly on their departure from that company has caused them direct, personal and serious harm and denied them enjoyment of their fundamental rights.
Order of the Court of 12 May 2014 in Case E-8/12 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of decisions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility)
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, access to information, document management, provision of documents








C_2015049EN.01001601.xml










12.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/16





ORDER OF THE COURT
of 12 May 2014
in Case E-8/12
Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Action for annulment of decisions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility)
(2015/C 49/09)
In Case E-8/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of three EFTA Surveillance Authority Decisions, as notified on 18 May 2012, 23 May 2012, and 2 July 2012, denying access to specific documents in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak – an antitrust infringement case) and in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker – a public access request case concerning the antitrust infringement case above), and also denying access to the procedures for handling public access requests and administering case files, under the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD 2008’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL of 27 June 2008 (unpublished), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 12 May 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to a statement of content in ESA Case No 34250.










2.


Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to ‘a letter dated or received on 13 July 2010 from Norway Post’ and ‘minutes from meetings between ESA, including its president, and Norway Post and/or the Norwegian Government’.










3.


Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 22 May 2012 as notified on 23 May 2012.










4.


Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns ESA’s procedures for administering case files or ESA’s procedures for handling public access requests.










5.


Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns access to ESA College decisions containing the current empowerment of its directors.










6.


Orders the applicants to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case C-229/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2014  — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH
Date: 2014-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, traineeship, wage earner








C_2014303EN.01000801.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2014 — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH
(Case C-229/14)
2014/C 303/10
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ender Balkaya

Defendant: Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is applicable EU law, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions or practices which provide that in carrying out the calculation provided for by that provision for the number of affected workers a member of the board of directors of a limited liability company should be omitted, even where he performs his duties at the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, he receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties, and does not himself own any shares in the company?










2.


Is applicable EU law, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, to be interpreted as making it mandatory that in carrying out the calculation provided for by that provision for the number of affected workers it is necessary to regard as workers persons who are not remunerated by the employer but are given financial support and are recognised by the competent public authority having responsibility for employment support, who actually perform work in order to acquire or improve skills or to complete vocational training (‘trainees’), or are Member States permitted to lay down national legislative provisions or practices as regards them?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.