do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6206 — Iberdrola/Caja Rural de Navarra/Renovables de la Ribera) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, exchange of information, merger control, natural gas, renewable energy, savings bank








C_2011176EN.01001101.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6206 — Iberdrola/Caja Rural de Navarra/Renovables de la Ribera)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 176/09






1.


On 31 May 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Iberenova Promociones SA Unipersonal (‘Iberenova’, Spain), belonging to the Iberdrola Group, and Caja Rural de Navarra Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito (‘Caja Rural de Navarra’, Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Renovables de la Ribera, S.L. (‘Renovables de la Ribera’, Spain), by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Iberenova: company belonging to the Iberdrola Group which is involved in the generation, distribution and retail supply (marketing) of electricity, and in the procurement, distribution and supply of natural gas,










—


for Caja Rural de Navarra: a Spanish financial institution, the corporate purpose of which is to engage in lending and borrowing and provide common services for financial entities forming part of the Spanish financial system,










—


for Renovables de la Ribera: promotion and operation of wind farm projects in Navarre (Spain).














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.6206 — Iberdrola/Caja Rural de Navarra/Renovables de la Ribera, 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’).
Case C-317/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v UniCredito Italiano SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and of the national figurative mark UNIZINS — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association — Series or family of trade marks)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), credit institution, investment company, private investment








C_2011232EN.01000902.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v UniCredito Italiano SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-317/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and of the national figurative mark UNIZINS - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Likelihood of association - Series or family of trade marks)
(2011/C 232/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (represented by: J. Zindel and C. Schmid, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: UniCredito Italiano SpA (represented by: G. Floridia, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2010 in Joined Cases T-303/06 and T-337/06 UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds, by which that court dismissed the claims of Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH in the context of the action brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2010 in Joined Cases T-303/06 and T-337/06 UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB).










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union.










3.


Orders that the costs be reserved.






(1)  OJ C 146, 11.9.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 of 10 May 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia ( OJ L 122, 11.5.2011 )
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, chemical alcohol, import, originating product








L_2011158EN.01005401.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/54







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 of 10 May 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 122 of 11 May 2011
)

On page 61, Article 1(2):
for:

               ‘VVF Limited, Sion (East), Mumbai’,
read:

               ‘VVF Ltd, Taloja, Maharashtra’.
Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Concept of an undertaking — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity — Duration)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, fine, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2011226EN.01002403.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/24





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission
(Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Concept of an undertaking - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity - Duration)
2011/C 226/49
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Gosselin Group NV, formerly Gosselin World Wide Moving NV (Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and S. De Keer, lawyers) (Case T-208/08); and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Van hove, lawyer) (Case T-209/08)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 5810 final of 24 July 2009, and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


In Case T-208/08, annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) in so far as that decision finds that Gosselin Group NV participated in the infringement of Article 81(1) EC from 30 October 1993 to 14 November 1996;










2.


Sets the amount of fine imposed on Gosselin Group in Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 5810 final of 24 July 2009, at EUR 2,32 million;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


In Case T-209/08, annuls Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Decision C(2009) 5810, in so far as it relates to Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje;










5.


In Case T-208/08, orders each party to bear its own costs;










6.


In Case T-209/08, orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
Case T-192/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Caffaro v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Limitation period — Differential treatment — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002102.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/21





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Caffaro v Commission
(Case T-192/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Limitation period - Differential treatment - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
2011/C 226/40
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Caffaro Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria and C. Biscaretti di Ruffia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as in that decision the Commission imposes a fine jointly and severally on the applicant and SNIA SpA and, in the alternative, a reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Caffaro Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011176EN.01000101.xml










16.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 June 2011
2011/C 176/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4292




JPY


Japanese yen


115,54




DKK


Danish krone


7,4591




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87970




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1482




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2164




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8200




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,215




HUF


Hungarian forint


265,85




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7089




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9410




RON


Romanian leu


4,1720




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2811




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3387




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3862




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,1306




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7574




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7642




KRW


South Korean won


1 548,35




ZAR


South African rand


9,7231




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2644




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3995




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 217,93




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3405




PHP


Philippine peso


62,180




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9470




THB


Thai baht


43,633




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2717




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9239




INR


Indian rupee


63,9710






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-301/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, firm governed by commercial law, freedom to provide services, legal domicile








C_2011252EN.01002002.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/20





Action brought on 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-301/11)
2011/C 252/38
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 3.60 and 3.61 of the 2001 Law on income tax (Wet inkomstenbelasting) and Articles 15c and 15d of the 1969 Law on corporation tax (Wet Vennootschapsbelasting), as currently in force, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 49 thereof;










—


order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the taxation of unrealised capital gains on the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking to another Member State or on the relocation to another Member State of an undertaking’s head office or of its actual centre of administration amounts to an obstacle to the freedom of establishment that is incompatible with Article 49 TFEU.
Case F-96/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Andrecs and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, action for annulment, pay, pension scheme








C_2011252EN.01005501.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/55





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Andrecs and Others v Commission
(Case F-96/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 252/120
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Stefan Robert Andrecs (Uccle, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant's decision adjusting the applicants’ remuneration, pensions and other allowances with effect from 1 July 2009, as set out in their salary slips, within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-96/10 Andrecs and Others v Commission.










2.


The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission's costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.2011, p. 63.
Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, fixing of prices, invitation to tender, market-sharing agreement, provision of services








C_2011226EN.01002402.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/24





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
2011/C 226/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers) (Case T-204/08); Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Trans Euro Ltd (London); and Team Relocations Ltd (London) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer) (Case T-212/08)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Antoniadis and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
Case T-194/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — SNIA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Acquisition of a company liable for the infringement — Rights of the defence — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002103.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/21





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — SNIA v Commission
(Case T-194/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Acquisition of a company liable for the infringement - Rights of the defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2011/C 226/41
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: SNIA SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria, B. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SNIA SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case T-195/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay Solexis v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of infringement — Concept of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Access to the file — Fines — Equal treatment — Leniency Notice — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011226EN.01002201.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/22





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay Solexis v Commission
(Case T-195/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of infringement - Concept of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Access to the file - Fines - Equal treatment - Leniency Notice - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2011/C 226/42
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Solvay Solexis SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico and G.L. Zampa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.