do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6330 — Ugitour/CDC/Sogecap/Real estate portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition, economic concentration, life assurance, merger control, property market








C_2011278EN.01001101.xml










22.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6330 — Ugitour/CDC/Sogecap/Real estate portfolio)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 278/12






1.


On 14 September 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Ugitour, a member of the AXA Group, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) and Sogecap, a member of the Société Générale group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of six hotel properties belonging to Groupe Foncière des Murs by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Ugitour is active in real estate asset management in Europe and the rest of the world,










—


Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) is a French public entity engaged in tasks of general interest on the one hand and activities open to competition on the other,










—


Sogecap is active in life insurance and capitalisation,










—


Real estate portfolio: the real estate portfolio consists of six buildings chiefly used as hotels, four in France and two in Belgium. They are operated by the Accor Group under the Mercure and Ibis trade names.














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.6330 — Ugitour/CDC/Sogecap/Real estate portfolio, 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 T-516/11: Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, electronic money, financial institution








C_2011347EN.01004002.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/40





Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
(Case T-516/11)
2011/C 347/72
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington); and MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the application admissible;










—


Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision dated 12 July 2011 based on the exceptions laid down in Articles 4(2), first indent, and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43); and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:






—


the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;










—


t he elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and










—


there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020).














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 4(2), first indent, and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:






—


the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(2), first indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;










—


the elements relied on by the Commission are not credible; and










—


there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the EIM documents.
Case C-314/10: Order of the Court of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State) (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution — National legislation requiring preliminary review procedure in case of constitutionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Need for a connection with European Union law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, jurisdiction








C_2012025EN.01002201.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/22






Order of the Court of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State)
(Case C-314/10) (1)

(Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution - National legislation requiring preliminary review procedure in case of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a connection with European Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
(2012/C 25/37)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Obligatory preliminary referral to the constitutional court by national courts in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation — Compatibility with European Union law of the provision of national law requiring that preliminary referral — Possibility for national courts to review compatibility of national rules with international treaties where the constitutional court has declared the national legislation at issue to be compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case C-486/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves v Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, motor car, third-party insurance, transport accident, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2011355EN.01001001.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves v Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
(Case C-486/11)
2011/C 355/16
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jonathan Rodrigues Esteves

Defendant: Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Questions referred







(a)


Must Article 1a of the Third Motor Insurance Directive (90/232/EEC) (1) — inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Motor Insurance Directive (2005/14/EC) (2) — on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles be interpreted as precluding national law (such as that stemming from Articles 505 and 570 of the Portuguese Civil Code) which provides that that compulsory insurance against such liability does not cover liability for the personal and material damage caused to a cyclist in a road-traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, even though the accident is due solely to the cyclist’s conduct?










(b)


If the answer is in the affirmative — that is, such an exclusion of compensation is contrary to Community law — is national legislation that limits or reduces such compensation, having regard to the fault of the cyclist, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the motor vehicle, on the other, in causing the accident, compatible with the aforementioned Community directives?






(1)  OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14.
Case C-485/11: Action brought on 22 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community tax, European undertaking, trade licence, transmission network








C_2011355EN.01000902.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/9





Action brought on 22 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-485/11)
2011/C 355/15
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by introducing an additional charge on operators of electronic communications by Article 33 of Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on audiovisual communication, (1) the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. (2)











—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission questions the compatibility of Article 302 bis KH of the General Tax Code, introduced par Article 33 of Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on audiovisual communication and the new public television service, with the Authorisations Directive. By imposing a charge on undertakings operating an electronic communications network or providing an electronic communications service under the general authorisation, the defendant infringes in particular Article 12 of the directive. The Commission does not accept the argument of the national authorities that Article 12 relates solely to charges which the States may impose ‘in respect of’ the issue of a licence or a process linked to the procedure of authorising operators of electronic communications. According to the applicant, the objective of Article 12 is in fact to encompass any form of ‘administrative’ charge, in other words linked to all costs engendered by the management, monitoring and enforcement of the authorisation scheme, and not only those linked to the issue of authorisation.


(1)  JORF No 0056, p. 4321.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 941/2011 of 22 September 2011 implementing Article 16(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2011246EN.01001101.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 246/11








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 941/2011
of 22 September 2011
         
implementing Article 16(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) and (5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.












(2)


Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2009 (2011) on 16 September 2011 and in accordance with Council Decision 2011/625/CFSP of 22 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2), the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be amended,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The entries for the entities set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the lists set out in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.


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, 22 September 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 1.

(2)  See page 30 of this Official Journal.




ANNEX

Entities referred to in Article 1

Entry deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011:






5.


Libyan National Oil Corporation.




Entry deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011:






29.


Zuietina Oil Company (a.k.a. ZOC; a.k.a. Zueitina).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6185 — Flabeg Holding/Schott Solar CPS)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, glass industry, merger control, solar energy








C_2011278EN.01000102.xml










22.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6185 — Flabeg Holding/Schott Solar CPS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 278/02
On 14 September 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 32011M6185. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011278EN.01000401.xml










22.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 September 2011
2011/C 278/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3636




JPY


Japanese yen


104,07




DKK


Danish krone


7,4472




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87310




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1170




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2208




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7570




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,930




HUF


Hungarian forint


293,05




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4333




RON


Romanian leu


4,3030




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4719




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3358




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3594




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6249




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6643




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7417




KRW


South Korean won


1 586,92




ZAR


South African rand


10,8540




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,6991




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4885




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 378,35




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2837




PHP


Philippine peso


59,405




RUB


Russian rouble


43,0350




THB


Thai baht


41,656




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4702




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3200




INR


Indian rupee


65,9030






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-94/05 RENV II: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Referral back to the General Court after setting aside — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, administrative contract, gaming establishment








C_2011340EN.01002001.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/20





Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission
(Case T-94/05 RENV II) (1)

(State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the General Court after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 340/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: P. Spyropoulos, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Mont Parnes Casino’ public contract.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE.










3.


Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs.










4.


Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
Case T-174/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two rectangular motifs) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Earlier national word mark A — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01001801.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/18





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two rectangular motifs)
(Case T-174/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs - Earlier national word mark A - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 319/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented initially by M. Gial, then by M. Gial and H. Pernez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Allrounder SARL (Sarrebourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara AG and Allrounder SARL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ara AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-250/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Cesea Group v OHIM — Mangini & C. (Mangiami) (Community trade mark — Invalidity Proceedings — Community figurative mark Mangiami — Earlier international word mark MANGINI — Admissibility of new evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bakery, confectionery, pastry-making, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01001601.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/16





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Cesea Group v OHIM — Mangini & C. (Mangiami)
(Case T-250/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity Proceedings - Community figurative mark Mangiami - Earlier international word mark MANGINI - Admissibility of new evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 319/30
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cesea Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone, D. Demarinis and J. Wrede, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Mangini & C. Srl (Sestri Levante, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mangini & C. Srl and Cesea Group Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008-2).










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.