do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-203/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Alchaar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Links with the regime — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy)
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, fundamental rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014282EN.01002702.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/27





Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Alchaar v Council
(Case T-203/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Links with the regime - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))
2014/C 282/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohamad Nedal Alchaar (Aleppo, Syria) (represented by: A. Korkmaz, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Cujo and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as those acts contain restrictive measures concerning the applicant, as well as of all future acts amending that decision or regulation and, secondly, of the Council’s communication of 16 March 2012 informing the applicant that his name was being maintained on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Mohamad Nedal Alchaar;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Alchaar;










4.


Orders Mr Alchaar to bear one third of his own costs;










5.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 738/2014 of 3 July 2014 approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Limone di Rocca Imperiale (PGI)]
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Calabria, Italy, citrus fruit, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2014199EN.01000101.xml










8.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 199/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 738/2014
of 3 July 2014
         
approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Limone di Rocca Imperiale (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)


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 an amendment to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Limone di Rocca Imperiale’ registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 149/2012 (2).












(2)


Since the amendment in question is 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 as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (3).












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendment to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is 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, 3 July 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 48, 21.2.2012, p. 11.

(3)  
            OJ C 42, 13.2.2014, p. 16.




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

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

ITALY
Limone di Rocca Imperiale (PGI)
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, heating








C_2014207EN.01004301.xml










3.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/43





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2014/C 207/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


12 March 2014





Case number



:


75005





Decision number



:


114/14/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Name of the beneficiary



:


BE Varme AS





Type of measure



:


Individual aid under the Energy Fund Scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA agreement





Scheme



:


The Energy Fund Scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 248/11/COL





Objective



:


Environmental protection





Form of aid



:


Grant





Aid amount



:


NOK 88,53 million





Economic sectors



:


District heating





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Enova SF




Professor Brochsgt. 2




N-7030 Trondheim




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014207EN.01000801.xml










3.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 207/8





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 207 A/02
Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.






5


 




6


 




11


 




19


 




21


 




26


 




27


 




30


(PL)




35


 




41


(DE/EN/FR)




42


 




43


 




46


 




47


 




48


 




55


 




56


 




60


 




62


 




65


 




73


(DE/EN/FR)




74


 




81


 




88


 




92


(DE/EN/FR)




97


 




98


 




99


 




108


 




109


 




116


 




119


 




133


 




134


 




136


 




137


(DE/EN/FR)




140


 




145


 




152


 




160


 




163


 




164


 




176


 




178


 




180


 




182


 




185


 




186


 




188


 




195


 




207
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, pluralism in the media








C_2014207EN.01004401.xml










3.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/44





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2014/C 207/07)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


12 March 2014





Case number



:


74036





Decision number



:


112/14/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Production grant scheme for news and current affairs media





Legal basis



:


Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement





Type of measure



:


Aid to news and current affairs media





Objective



:


Promotion of media plurality and diversity





Form of aid



:


Grant





Budget



:


Approx. NOK 290 million p.a.





Duration



:


Until 2020





Economic sectors



:


News and current affairs media





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Norwegian Media Authority




Nygata 4




N-1607 Fredrikstad




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case T-359/11: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, import restriction, international sanctions, judicial proceedings








C_2014292EN.01005802.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/58





Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-359/11) (1)

2014/C 292/72
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-206/13: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Stance v OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01001702.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/17





Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Stance v OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
(Case T-206/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
2014/C 339/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad Andhra Pradesh, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 February 2013 (Case R 885/2012-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Pokarna Ltd and Stance, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case T-Joined Cases T-319/12 and T-321/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Spain v Commission (State aid — Cinematography — Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Criterion of private market economy investor — State aid for regional purposes — Aid to promote culture — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, building subsidy, control of State aid, film industry








C_2014282EN.01002901.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/29





Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-Joined Cases T-319/12 and T-321/12) (1)

((State aid - Cinematography - Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Criterion of private market economy investor - State aid for regional purposes - Aid to promote culture - Duty to state reasons))
2014/C 282/37
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogade del Estado); Cuidad de la Luz, SAU (Alicante, Spain); and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SAU (Alicante) (represented initially by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, J. Belenguer Mula and M. Muñoz de Juan, and subsequently by: J. Buendía Sierra and J. Belenguer Mula, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3025 final of 8 May 2012 concerning State aid SA.22668 (C 8/2008 (NN 4/2008)), which Spain implemented in favour of Ciudad de la Luz, SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders La Ciudad de la Lux, SA, Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SA and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Case C-350/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014  — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) — Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Protection of legal advice — Decision partially refusing access)
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, derogation from EU law, international agreement, international relations, social participation








C_2014292EN.01000301.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld
(Case C-350/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Protection of legal advice - Decision partially refusing access))
2014/C 292/03
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Berman, B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sophie in ’t Veld (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Blockx, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of Sophie in ’t Veld: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal;










2)


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;










3)


Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
Case C-318/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 July 2014  — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, EU law - national law, carrier, legal domicile, means of public conveyance, public service, transport company, urban transport








C_2014351EN.01000201.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 July 2014 — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje
(Case C-318/14)
2014/C 351/02
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava, a.s.

Defendant: Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 49 in conjunction with Article 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the application of national provisions which require a carrier whose seat is in another Member State and is established in the Czech Republic by means of an organisational unit to obtain, in addition to the licences and concessions authorising a carrier with its seat in the Czech Republic to operate domestic scheduled services (urban public transport), in order to pursue the same activity, also a special authorisation, the issue of which is at the discretion of the administrative authorities?










2.


Is it relevant for the answer to Question 1 that this is a case of urban public transport operated under the public service obligation system on the basis of a public service contract for consideration paid from public funds within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70?










3.


May Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 (2) of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State, in conjunction with Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to restrict the operation of urban public transport services by a carrier whose seat is in another Member State in the manner described in Question 1?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10.
Case C-323/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2014  — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, glass fibre, import (EU), originating product








C_2014315EN.01004101.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/41





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2014 — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
(Case C-323/14)
2014/C 315/66
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Helm AG

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 (1) invalid, to the extent to which it relates to the Jushi Group, in view of the fact that the Commission did not determine within three months of the initiation of the investigation, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation, (2) whether the Jushi Group, which was included in the sample, met the criteria set out in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation?


(1)  Implementing Regulation of 9 March 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 67, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7132 — INEOS/Doeflex)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2014207EN.01004701.xml










3.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/47





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7132 — INEOS/Doeflex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 207/10)






1.


On 24 June 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking INEOS AG (‘INEOS’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of businesses and assets of Doeflex Compounding Limited (‘Doeflex’, the United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created holding company (‘Newco’).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for INEOS: manufacturing of petrochemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products, production and sale of S-PVC, E-PVC, plasticisers and S-PVC compounds, globally,
—   for Doeflex: production of dry blend and gelled S-PVC compounds, with a single manufacturing facility located in the United Kingdom.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number Case M.7132 — INEOS/Doeflex to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).