do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5817 — Triton Fund III/Ambea) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, health care, investment company, merger control, private investment, provision of services








C_2010055EN.01001601.xml










5.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5817 — Triton Fund III/Ambea)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 55/11






1.


On 26 February 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Triton Managers III Limited and TFF III Limited (collectively, ‘Triton Fund III’, Channel Islands), belonging to the Triton investment funds group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Ambea AB (‘Ambea’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Triton Fund III: private equity investment fund,










—


for Ambea: provision of healthcare services and care services in Sweden, Finland and Norway.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5817 — Triton Fund III/Ambea, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 191/2010 of 5 March 2010 fixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 6 March 2010
Date: 2010-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, import, rice








L_2010056EN.01000601.xml










6.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 56/6








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 191/2010
of 5 March 2010
         
fixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 6 March 2010
         


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 137 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Based on the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 , other than import licences for basmati rice, were issued in respect of 168 643 tonnes for the period from 1 September 2009 to 28 February 2010. The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20  other than basmati rice should therefore be adjusted.












(2)


The applicable duty must be fixed within 10 days of the end of the period mentioned above. This Regulation should therefore come into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20  shall be EUR 30 per tonne.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 5 March 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
Case T-109/10: Action brought on 5 March 2010 — Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2010-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Luxembourg, action for annulment (EU), balance of payments assistance, flood








C_2010134EN.01003901.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/39





Action brought on 5 March 2010 — Luxembourg v Commission
(Case T-109/10)
2010/C 134/67
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent, and P. Kinsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment, in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Community Initiative Interreg II/C ‘Rhine/Meuse Flooding*’ in the Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No. 970010008).
In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.
By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that if the actions for annulment brought by the Dutch and German authorities are upheld, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg should benefit as a result. If it is found that the errors and weaknesses, allegedly systematic, which the Commission’s audit was thought to have revealed in the functioning of the program in question in the Netherlands and Germany, do not in reality exist, the very basis of the decision’s reasoning fails and with it the linear financial correction applied to the projects implemented in Luxembourg.
The second plea in law alleges the illegality of the extension, to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of a financial adjustment* that might be justified only in respect of other Member States. No anomalies have been found in the operation* of the program in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The fact that Luxembourg agreed to participate in a joint project with Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands does not justify the negative effects, in terms of financial adjustment* of its own projects, of errors or weaknesses that were discovered during the audit of Dutch or German projects, and which consist almost exclusively in alleged breaches of provisions of the procedure for awarding public contracts. Despite the fact that this is a matter of joint participation by five Member States in the same program, procedures for public procurement* awarding public contracts come within the exclusive responsibility of the national authorities of the Member States concerned.