do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6278 — Takeda/Nycomed)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2011240EN.01000102.xml










18.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6278 — Takeda/Nycomed)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 240/02
On 29 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6278. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-458/11: Action brought on 18 August 2011 — Riche v Council and Commission
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: agricultural product, farmer, infringement of EU law, spirits








C_2011298EN.01002801.xml










8.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/28





Action brought on 18 August 2011 — Riche v Council and Commission
(Case T-458/11)
2011/C 298/52
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe Riche (Meursac, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Make reparation in full of the loss suffered because of the financial penalties imposed, namely the sum of EUR 136 600;










—


Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses:






—


relating to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union,










—


also relating to all the proceedings before all the internal tribunals;














—


Fix the amount for non-pecuniary damage at a lump-sum of EUR 100 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest and serious disregard of the limits on the discretion of the Council and the Commission.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Council and/or by the Commission of the decision of the Member States to exclude wine spirits such as those produced by the applicant from the list of agricultural products.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 40 TFEU as regards the wine producers concerned who have distillation plants enabling them to transform into alcohol the production in excess of the quantity normally produced.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty consisting, firstly, of an infringement of the rights acquired by the producers concerned and, secondly, of an infringement of the legitimate expectation placed in the fact that they could themselves carry out the transformation into wine spirits of their production in excess of the quantity normally produced.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of estoppel, referring to the prohibition on a public authority from contradicting itself to the detriment of third parties.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging wrongful interference with the freedom to produce industrial goods and put them on the market.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging wrongful extension of the application of the contested regulation to cases where there are no applications for funding.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6324 — Bain Capital/Hellman & Friedman/Securitas Direct)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, security services








C_2011240EN.01000201.xml










18.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6324 — Bain Capital/Hellman & Friedman/Securitas Direct)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 240/03
On 10 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6324. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-430/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Adria (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Sagor MD
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, conditional discharge, foreign national, illegal migration, periodic penalty payment, removal








C_2012025EN.01002501.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/25






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Adria (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Sagor MD
(Case C-430/11)
(2012/C 25/44)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Adria

Party to the main proceedings

Sagor MD

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?










2.


In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?










3.


Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011240EN.01000801.xml










18.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 August 2011
2011/C 240/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4477




JPY


Japanese yen


110,77




DKK


Danish krone


7,4499




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87760




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1685




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1402




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7985




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,430




HUF


Hungarian forint


269,40




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7091




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1338




RON


Romanian leu


4,2466




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5566




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3687




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4167




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,2802




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7264




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7391




KRW


South Korean won


1 547,43




ZAR


South African rand


10,2735




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2466




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4610




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 329,46




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3040




PHP


Philippine peso


61,448




RUB


Russian rouble


41,4744




THB


Thai baht


43,243




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2880




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5897




INR


Indian rupee


65,6800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6299 — KKR/Sorgenia/Sorgenia France)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, gas, management, merger control








C_2011240EN.01000101.xml










18.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6299 — KKR/Sorgenia/Sorgenia France)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 240/01
On 9 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6299. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.