do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, air transport, inland transport, public service, transport regulations








C_2014236EN.01000501.xml










22.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/5





Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 236/05






Member State


Ireland




Concerned routes


Kerry – Dublin
Donegal – Dublin




Date of entry into force of the revised public service obligations


1 February 2015




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligations can be obtained







Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport




44 Kildare Street




Dublin 2




IRELAND




Airports Division




Tel. +353 16041299 / +353 16041616




Fax +353 16041681




E-mail: Airportsdivision@dttas.ie
Case T-543/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01002102.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/21





Action brought on 22 July 2014 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)
(Case T-543/14)
2014/C 339/26
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 May 2014 in Case R 1859/2013-2 concerning the international trade mark in the European Union No 0962191 and to alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the application for a declaration of invalidity is granted;










—


Order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration of the word mark ‘HOT SOX’ — International registration No 9 62  191

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Renfro Corp.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: provima Warenhandels GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 158 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 158 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case F-71/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — ZZ v European External Action Service (EEAS)
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, living conditions, occupational accident, work contract








C_2014388EN.01002901.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/29





Action brought on 22 July 2014 — ZZ v European External Action Service (EEAS)
(Case F-71/14)
2014/C 388/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L.F. de Castro and J.-L. Gillain, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision no longer to pay the allowance for living conditions (ALC), the additional payment (AP) based on the living conditions in the applicant’s place of employment and a daily allowance (DA), and to pay for 49 days’ leave not taken in respect of 2012 and a claim for compensation for the harm caused by a failure to offer aid or assistance and abandonment following the work-place accident suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Payment of the AP and ALC from 1 May 2012 to 31 October 2013, or, at the very least, payment thereof for the same period as that of the DA;










—


Payment for the 49 days’ leave not taken during 2012;










—


Re-establishment of the contract or the establishment of a new contract for an indefinite period or which must, at term, be confirmed as a contract for an indefinite period or compensation for the harm connected with the fact that, absent the accident, a new contract would have been concluded between the applicant and the defendant;










—


Compensation for the loss which she suffered following the accident. (i) EUR 10  000 as regards the failure to offer aid and assistance in Jordan and in Brussels on a medical, administrative and financial level; (ii) a sum equal to all the salary, allowances and benefits not paid and lost and costs incurred, medical and other, by the applicant because of the accident, provisionally estimated at EUR 50  000, in respect of the accident for which liability lies with the United Nations and the EEAS; the latter must assist and finance the action for a declaration of liability of the United Nations and all parties involved in the organisation of that period of probation. (iii) a provisional sum of EUR 50  000 in respect of the misuse of fixed-term contracts, each containing a probation clause, in particular the latter and the failure to renew it.
Case T-553/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01001601.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/16





Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
(Case T-553/14)
2014/C 351/19
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 218/2014-5.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 737 657

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
Case F-70/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, transfer of pension rights








C_2014388EN.01002802.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/28





Action brought on 22 July 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
(Case F-70/14)
2014/C 388/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which apply the new General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 and, in addition, an order that the Commission compensate the applicants for the harm resulting from the excessively long period taken to deal with their transfer applications.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions calculating the increase in their respective pension rights acquired before their entry into force at the Commission;










—


In addition, order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered due to the errors committed which led to the excessively long period taken to deal with their application to transfer pension rights;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-356/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal breeding, cattle, certificate of origin, export aid, intra-EU trade, official document








C_2014329EN.01000701.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
(Case C-356/14)
2014/C 329/09
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred







1.


In accordance with the provisions of Community law, is a breeding animal of the bovine species, which has been entered, as its parents and grandparents were, in the herd-book of the Holstein-Friesian breed by the official organisation of breeders of the Member State, to be considered pure-bred, regardless of the degree of genetic purity of breed of its ancestors?










2.


Must the provision of Decision 2005/379/EC (1) to which reference is made be interpreted as meaning that breeding animals with pedigree certificates that contain the phrase set out in Article 2(1)(a) of that decision are to be considered pure-bred breeding animals and, consequently, give rise to an entitlement to export aids when they are the subject of intra-Community trade?










3.


In view of the foregoing, is it possible to consider that, although an animal holds a pedigree certificate which has been issued by an association of breeders of the Member State and in which the abovementioned phrase is included, such an animal, when it is the subject of intra-Community trade, does not confer on the trader an entitlement to export aids because it is not considered a pure-bred breeding animal despite there being an official document in which the abovementioned phrase is included?






(1)  Commission Decision of 17 May 2005 on pedigree certificates and particulars for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species, their semen, ova and embryos (OJ 2005 L 125, p. 15).
Case C-352/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez v Bankia, S.A. and Others
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, State aid, severance pay, unfair dismissal








C_2014339EN.01001201.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez v Bankia, S.A. and Others
(Case C-352/14)
2014/C 339/14
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez

Defendants: Bankia, S.A., Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 56 of the Worker’s Statute (Royal legislative decree 1/1995 of 24 March), the Fifth transitional provision of Law 3/2012 of 6 July on urgent measures for the reform of the labour market and Articles 123 and 124.13 of Law 36/2011 of 10 October governing the social courts (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social, which refers to the other provisions) contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inasmuch as they materially increase the compensation authorised by the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?










2.


Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be fair, to adjust the compensation to the legal minimum provided for under national law contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?










3.


Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be unfair, to adjust the compensation to the amounts provided for under the agreement reached in the consultation period, provided that those amounts are greater than the legal minimum but lower than the legal maximum, contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7267 — Sopra Group/Groupe Steria)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2014236EN.01000101.xml










22.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7267 — Sopra Group/Groupe Steria)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 236/01
On 14 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7267. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7190 — Bekaert/Maccaferri/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, environmental education, merger control, steel, technology








C_2014236EN.01000102.xml










22.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7190 — Bekaert/Maccaferri/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 236/02
On 14 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7190. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission communication pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2014236EN.01000502.xml










22.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/5





Commission communication pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 236/06






Member State


Ireland




Concerned routes


Kerry–Dublin
Donegal–Dublin




Period of validity of the contract


1 February 2015-31 January 2017 with possible 1 year extension following satisfactory review after 18 months of initial contract




Deadline for the submission of tenders


2 months after the date of publication of this tender invitation




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained free of charge







Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport




44 Kildare Street




Dublin 2




IRELAND




Airports Division




Tel. +353 16041299 / +353 16041616




Fax +353 16041681




E-mail: Airportsdivision@dttas.ie
Council Decision 2014/484/CFSP of 22 July 2014 amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions




L_2014217EN.01003801.xml










23.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 217/38








            COUNCIL DECISION 2014/484/CFSP
of 22 July 2014
         
amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Whereas:







(1)


On 7 July 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/495/CFSP (1) to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1483 (2003).












(2)


Clarity is needed concerning certain provisions of Common Position 2003/495/CFSP,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Common Position 2003/495/CFSP, the following Article is inserted:

‘Article 2a
No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of the persons and entities referred to in Article 2(b).
Exemptions may be made for funds and economic resources which are:






(a)


necessary to satisfy basic needs of the persons referred to in Article 2(b), and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;










(b)


intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;










(c)


intended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources; or










(d)


necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the relevant competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the competent authorities of the other Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks prior to the authorisation.’







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, 22 July 2014.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  Council Common Position 2003/495/CFSP of 7 July 2003 on Iraq and repealing Common Positions 96/741/CFSP and 2002/599/CFSP (OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 72).
Case C-353/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Elisabet Rion Bea v Bankia, S.A. and Others
Date: 2014-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, State aid, severance pay, unfair dismissal








C_2014339EN.01001301.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Elisabet Rion Bea v Bankia, S.A. and Others
(Case C-353/14)
2014/C 339/15
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elisabet Rion Bea

Defendants: Bankia, S.A., Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 56 of the Worker’s Statute (Royal legislative decree 1/1995 of 24 March), the Fifth transitional provision of Law 3/2012 of 6 July on urgent measures for the reform of the labour market and Articles 123 and 124.13 of Law 36/2011 of 10 October governing the social courts (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social, which refers to the other provisions) contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inasmuch as they materially increase the compensation authorised by the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?










2.


Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be fair, to adjust the compensation to the legal minimum provided for under national law contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?










3.


Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be unfair, to adjust the compensation to the amounts provided for under the agreement reached in the consultation period, provided that those amounts are greater than the legal minimum but lower than the legal maximum, contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?