do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/971 of 10 May 2023 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro’ (PDO))
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Calabria, Italy, citrus fruit, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2023132EN.01004501.xml










17.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 132/45








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/971
of 10 May 2023
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro’ (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)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro’ 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 ‘Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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, 10 May 2023.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 25, 24.1.2023, p. 12.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Notice on the availability of areas in Austria for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons 2023/C 165/06
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: Austria, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, petroleum exploration, regions of Austria








C_2023165EN.01001301.xml










10.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/13






Notice on the availability of areas in Austria for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
(2023/C 165/06)
With reference to Article 3(3) of Directive 94/22/EC (1), the Federal Minister for Finance of the Republic of Austria hereby gives notice that, in accordance with the Mineral Raw Materials Act (Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.) I No 38/1999), as last amended by the Federal Act published in BGBl. I No 60/2022, the whole national territory of the Republic of Austria is available on a permanent basis within the meaning of Article 3(3) provided that there are no existing prospection, production and storage contracts relating to hydrocarbons, or existing mining rights which also include hydrocarbons. For detailed information on this matter, please contact the Federal Ministry of Finance, Section VI – Telecommunications, Postal Services and Mining, Denisgasse 31, 1200 Vienna.
This notice replaces the notice from the Republic of Austria published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union C 111 of 3 April 2020, page 3.


(1)  Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).
Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, biocide, consumer information, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2023304EN.01000601.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG
(Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt)
(2023/C 304/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

Question referred

Is a ‘similar indication’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) only such an indication contained in an advertisement which, in the same manner as the terms expressly listed in that provision, downplays properties of the biocide as regards the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy by means of a blanket statement, or does a ‘similar indication’ include all terms which, in respect of the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy, downplay the risks in a manner comparable to the terms expressly listed but are not necessarily also general in nature like those terms?


(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
Case T-437/22: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark bistro Régent — Earlier national word mark REGENT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2023223EN.01002601.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/26






Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent)
(Case T-437/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark bistro Régent - Earlier national word mark REGENT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
(2023/C 223/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vanhove (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: N. Castagnon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 May 2022 (Case R 1113/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vanhove to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.
Case T-247/23: Action brought on 10 May 2023 — Maud Tea & Seed and Fresh Produce Consortium of Kenya v Commission
Date: 2023-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer protection, food safety, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, pesticide, pesticide residue, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tea








C_2023286EN.01002801.xml










14.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/28






Action brought on 10 May 2023 — Maud Tea & Seed and Fresh Produce Consortium of Kenya v Commission
(Case T-247/23)
(2023/C 286/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd (Kolkata, India), Fresh Produce Consortium of Kenya Ltd (Nairobi, Kenya) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the Contested Regulation (1) in its entirety, or alternatively, to annul the Contested Regulation in so far as it lowers the maximum residue level for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on teas and fresh fruit and vegetables;










—


order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation constitutes an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the Commission which exceeds the powers delegated to the Commission under the MRL Regulation (2) and infringes upon the EU Treaties as well as general rules of public international law.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation manifestly exceeds the subject matter scope of the powers delegated to the Commission under the MRL Regulation; subsidiarily, if the MRL Regulation is found to be a sufficient legal basis for the Contested Regulation, the MRL Regulation itself is ultra vires as it exceeds the permissible scope of delegated powers under the EU Treaties.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates several provisions of the MRL Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates the principles of legal certainty and transparency.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/334 of 2 February 2023 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products, OJ 2023, L 47, p. 29.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).