do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-112/23: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2023 — Konings v EUIPO — Manuel Busto Amandi (MAY GOLD) (European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2023-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023304EN.01002301.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/23






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2023 — Konings v EUIPO — Manuel Busto Amandi (MAY GOLD)
(Case T-112/23) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
(2023/C 304/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Konings NV (Zonhoven, Belgium) (represented by: K. Neefs, S. de Potter and T. Baetens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P.-F. Karamolegkou and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Manuel Busto Amandi, SA (Villaviciosa, Spain) (represented by: J. Vicente Martínez, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2022 (Case R 1778/2021-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Konings NV and Manuel Busto Amandi, SA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 134, 17.4.2023.
Case T-349/23: Action brought on 27 June 2023 — Semedo v Parliament
Date: 2023-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, parliamentary allowance, psychological harassment, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023321EN.01005102.xml










11.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/51






Action brought on 27 June 2023 — Semedo v Parliament
(Case T-349/23)
(2023/C 321/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Monica Semedo (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, L. Burguin and L. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 17 April 2023 finding that the acts alleged by [confidential] (1) against Ms Semedo constituted psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


annul the decision of 17 April 2023 imposing on Ms Semedo a penalty consisting in the forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of ten days taken on the basis of the abovementioned decision;










—


declare that Article 9(5) of the Bureau’s decision of 2 July 2018 on the functioning of the Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members of the European Parliament and its procedures for dealing with complaints is unlawful in so far as it does not allow the person concerned by an investigation to be heard in the presence of a person of his or her choice or even his or her lawyer;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and the rights of the defence. The applicant claims that the contested decisions were not adopted by the President of European Parliament under conditions guaranteeing that she would be heard and be able to exercise her rights of defence during the procedure before the Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members of the European Parliament (‘the Advisory Committee’) and before the President of the Parliament. The applicant further submits that Article 9(5) of the decision of 2 July 2018 on the functioning of the Advisory Committee and its procedures for dealing with complaints is unlawful in so far as it does not allow the person concerned by an investigation to be heard in the presence of a person of his or her choice or even his or her lawyer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the decision finding that the acts of Ms Semedo constituted psychological harassment is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, since the acts complained of did not fulfil the criteria set out by Article 12a(3) of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.






(1)  Confidential data omitted.
Council Decision (EU) 2023/1323 of 27 June 2023 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand
Date: 2023-06-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: New Zealand, free-trade agreement, signature of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2023166EN.01004801.xml










30.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 166/48








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2023/1323
of 27 June 2023
         
on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1), Article 100(2) and Article 207(4), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 May 2018, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a free trade agreement with New Zealand.












(2)


On 30 June 2022, the negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand (‘the Agreement’) were successfully concluded.












(3)


The Agreement should be signed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand (‘the Agreement’) is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement. (1)



Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 27 June 2023.


For the Council


The President

J. ROSWALL
            





(1)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.
Case C-388/23, Golden Omega: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2023 — Golden Omega, SA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam/Rijnmond
Date: 2023-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, fish oil, organic acid, processed food product, specification of tariff heading








C_202300114EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/114


16.10.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2023 — Golden Omega, SA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam/Rijnmond
(Case C-388/23, Golden Omega)
(C/2023/114)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Golden Omega SA

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

Questions referred







1.


Is heading 1516 of the CN to be interpreted as containing restrictions relating to the method and substance used for esterification of an animal oil and, if so, what are those restrictions?










2.


In order to fall under heading 1516, must an animal oil, such as fish oil, be esterified with glycerol?










3.


Is an animal oil, such as fish oil, that is esterified with ethanol to be excluded from classification under heading 1516?










4.


In answering the above questions, is it relevant to assess the extent to which the product has undergone the processing mentioned in heading 1516 and, if so, on the basis of what criteria should that assessment be carried out?










5.


Do the answers to the above questions affect the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/1661 (1) of 24 September 2019 and, if so, how?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 of 24 September 2019 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2019 L 251, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/114/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)