# Official Journal C 121/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 121 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5724 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 121

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5724 April 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 121/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6910 — Gazprom/Wintershall/Target Companies) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 121/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6910 — Gazprom/Wintershall/Target Companies) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 121/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2014/C 121/03 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers (Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012) | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 121/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2014/C 121/03

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers (Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012)

(Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012)

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2014/C 121/04 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf. (Case E-27/13) | 4 |
| 2014/C 121/05 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd (Case E-28/13) | 5 |
| 2014/C 121/06 | Judgment of the Court of 27 January 2014 in Case E-1/13 — Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority | 6 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2014/C 121/04

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf. (Case E-27/13)

4

2014/C 121/05

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd (Case E-28/13)

5

2014/C 121/06

Judgment of the Court of 27 January 2014 in Case E-1/13 — Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6910 — Gazprom/Wintershall/Target Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 121/01)

On 3 December 2013, 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 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 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6910. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6910. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 April 2014

(2014/C 121/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3834 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4665 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82390 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0829 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2198 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2715 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,459 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1926 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4678 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9739 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4905 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5249 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7252 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6125 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7391 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 441,29 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6724 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6270 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6199 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 090,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5197 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,870 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 49,4120 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,738 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1039 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0810 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,5742 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3834

JPY

Japanese yen

141,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4665

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82390

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0829

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2198

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2715

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,459

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1926

RON

Romanian leu

4,4678

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9739

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4905

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5249

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7252

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6125

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7391

KRW

South Korean won

1 441,29

ZAR

South African rand

14,6724

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6270

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6199

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 090,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5197

PHP

Philippine peso

61,870

RUB

Russian rouble

49,4120

THB

Thai baht

44,738

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1039

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0810

INR

Indian rupee

84,5742

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

---

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers

(Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012)

(2014/C 121/03)

According to Annex I.1(1) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 (1) implementing Directive 2009/125/EC (2), the cycle which dries cotton laundry (with an initial moisture content of the load of 60 %) up to a remaining moisture content of the load of 0 % (hereinafter the ‘standard cotton programme’) shall be used for the calculation of the energy consumption and other parameters for household tumble driers.

That cycle shall be clearly identifiable on the programme selection device(s) of the household tumble drier or the household tumble drier display, if any, or both, and indicated as ‘standard cotton programme’ or by a uniform symbol or an appropriate combination thereof.

To facilitate the clear identification of the ‘standard cotton programme’ cycle on the programme selection device of the household tumble drier or the household tumble drier display, only the following uniform symbol should be used as an alternative to ‘standard cotton programme’:

Where more than one selection device or option in the display of the household tumble drier is needed, the same symbol applies.

The booklet of instructions provided by the manufacturer shall indicate that the ‘standard cotton programme’ can be identified by this symbol, by 1 August 2015 at the latest.

This transitional symbol will ultimately be replaced by a symbol provided in harmonised standard(s), for the purposes of compliance and verification of compliance with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012, the reference numbers of which have to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2009/125/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 278, 12.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/4

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf.

(Case E-27/13)

(2014/C 121/04)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 December 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 17 December 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn hf., on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 87/102/EEC on consumer credit, as amended by Directive 90/88/EEC and Directive 98/7/EC, that when a credit agreement is made, which is linked to the consumer price index in accordance with an authorisation in enacted legislation, and the sum loaned therefore changes in accordance with inflation, the calculation of the total cost of the credit, and of the annual percentage rate of charge, which is shown to the consumer when the agreement is made, is based on 0 % inflation, and not on the known rate of inflation on the date when the loan is taken? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 87/102/EEC on consumer credit, as amended by Directive 90/88/EEC and Directive 98/7/EC, that when a credit agreement is made, which is linked to the consumer price index in accordance with an authorisation in enacted legislation, and the sum loaned therefore changes in accordance with inflation, the calculation of the total cost of the credit, and of the annual percentage rate of charge, which is shown to the consumer when the agreement is made, is based on 0 % inflation, and not on the known rate of inflation on the date when the loan is taken?

| 2. | Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts if the legislation in an EEA State permits the inclusion of provisions in a consumer contract, stating that repayments of the loan are to be linked to a predetermined index? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts if the legislation in an EEA State permits the inclusion of provisions in a consumer contract, stating that repayments of the loan are to be linked to a predetermined index?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is that the index-linking of repayments of consumer loans is compatible with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC, then the third question is: Does the Directive limit the latitude of the EEA State in question to determine, through legislation or by means of administrative regulations, the factors that are to cause changes in the predetermined index and the methods by which these changes are to be measured? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is that the index-linking of repayments of consumer loans is compatible with the provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC, then the third question is: Does the Directive limit the latitude of the EEA State in question to determine, through legislation or by means of administrative regulations, the factors that are to cause changes in the predetermined index and the methods by which these changes are to be measured?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the latitude of the Member State referred to in that question, then the fourth question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price-changes is specified in the bond, (b) the bond is accompanied by a repayment schedule showing estimated and itemised repayments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond, and (c) both the consumer and the grantor of credit sign the repayment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the latitude of the Member State referred to in that question, then the fourth question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price-changes is specified in the bond, (b) the bond is accompanied by a repayment schedule showing estimated and itemised repayments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond, and (c) both the consumer and the grantor of credit sign the repayment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer?

| 5. | Is the method of calculation of price changes applying to a loan contract regarded as having been explicitly explained to the consumer within the meaning of paragraph 2(d) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC when the circumstances are as described in the fourth question? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the method of calculation of price changes applying to a loan contract regarded as having been explicitly explained to the consumer within the meaning of paragraph 2(d) of the Annex to Directive 93/13/EEC when the circumstances are as described in the fourth question?

| 6. | Does a State that is party to the EEA Agreement have the option, when adopting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, of either prescribing in domestic legislation that unfair contract terms within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive may be declared non-binding on the consumer or prescribing in domestic legislation that such terms shall at all times be non-binding on the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does a State that is party to the EEA Agreement have the option, when adopting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, of either prescribing in domestic legislation that unfair contract terms within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive may be declared non-binding on the consumer or prescribing in domestic legislation that such terms shall at all times be non-binding on the consumer?

---

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/5

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd

(Case E-28/13)

(2014/C 121/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 December 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 17 December 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd, on the following questions:

| 1. | Should Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC, on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, be interpreted as meaning that ‘the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts’ refers to the rules on the rescission of measures taken by a financial undertaking according to rules that are comparable to those that apply to the rescission of measures taken by a bankrupt individual under the Bankruptcy (Etc.) Act? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC, on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, be interpreted as meaning that ‘the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts’ refers to the rules on the rescission of measures taken by a financial undertaking according to rules that are comparable to those that apply to the rescission of measures taken by a bankrupt individual under the Bankruptcy (Etc.) Act?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that rescission of the measure would not be permitted under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure, with reference to rules of any type, e.g. rules on time limits for taking legal action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that rescission of the measure would not be permitted under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure, with reference to rules of any type, e.g. rules on time limits for taking legal action?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the negative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that the conditions for rescission under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure have evidently not been met, e.g. because there is a complete lack of authorisation for the rescission of the type of measure involved? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the negative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that the conditions for rescission under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure have evidently not been met, e.g. because there is a complete lack of authorisation for the rescission of the type of measure involved?

---

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 January 2014

in Case E-1/13

Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment — State aid — Lease contract — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — Market investor principle — Tender procedure)

(2014/C 121/06)

In Case E-1/13, Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’) the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 January 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Annuls ESA Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ESA Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’).

| 2. | Orders ESA to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ESA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---