do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6404 — Hochtief Solutions/Ventizz/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distribution business, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, wind energy








C_2011315EN.01001101.xml










28.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6404 — Hochtief Solutions/Ventizz/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 315/06






1.


On 21 October 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Hochtief Solutions AG (‘Hochtief Solutions’, Germany) and Ventizz Capital Fund IV L.P. (‘Ventizz IV’, Jersey) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (‘JV’, Luxembourg) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Hochtief Solutions: active in a number of different business areas, including service solutions, real estate solutions, energy and infrastructure solutions, international project solutions, classic solutions and engineering solutions. Hochtief Solutions is part of the Hochtief Aktiengesellschaft group of companies, which is controlled by Actividades de Construcción y Servicios, SA (Spain),










—


for Ventizz IV: a private equity fund investing primarily in the German speaking regions in high tech companies and providing these companies with additional equity,










—


for JV: active in the project development for offshore wind farms primarily in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.














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.6404 — Hochtief Solutions/Ventizz/JV, 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-562/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012013EN.01001801.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/18





Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)
(Case T-562/11)
2012/C 13/38
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ADA Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2011 in Case R 2121/2010-4;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: ADA Cosmetic GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: International Registration of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘SYMBIOTIC CARE’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word and figurative marks ‘SYMBIOFLOR’ and ‘SYMBIOLACT’, international registration of the word mark ‘SYMBIOFEM’ and figurative mark ‘SYMBIOVITAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal disregarded the fact that the trade marks on which the opposition was based form a family of marks.
Case T-560/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, wood product








C_2012013EN.01001702.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/17





Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission
(Case T-560/11)
2012/C 13/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kronofrance SAS (Sully sur Loire, France), Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 23 March 2011 (C 28/2005), which declared the State aid that Germany had implemented in favour of Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, in the amount of EUR 69 797 988, to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.





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 infringement of the TFEU Treaty or the EC Treaty or of a rule of law which has to be applied when it is implemented
In the first plea the applicants submit that the Commission did not comply with the rules in the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7) (‘the Multisectoral framework’) in that it






—


did not determine a maximum allowable aid intensity as required, in the applicants’ opinion, by point 3.1 of the Multisectoral framework;










—


established the annual growth rates for chipboards in accordance with point 7.8 of the Multisectoral framework on the basis of incorrect periods and thus arrived at an excessively high competition factor;










—


combined different competition factors in respect of the same project and therefore departed from the legal framework of point 3.10 of the Multisectoral framework.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers
In the second plea the applicants submit that the Commission misused its powers in assessing the aid as it did not adhere to the requirements which it itself had established.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011315EN.01000801.xml










28.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 October 2011
2011/C 315/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4038




JPY


Japanese yen


106,39




DKK


Danish krone


7,4441




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87630




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0280




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2213




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6560




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,833




HUF


Hungarian forint


302,20




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7043




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3420




RON


Romanian leu


4,3323




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4798




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3188




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3964




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,9113




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7231




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7555




KRW


South Korean won


1 558,65




ZAR


South African rand


10,9256




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9284




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4900




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 381,61




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3405




PHP


Philippine peso


60,146




RUB


Russian rouble


42,3128




THB


Thai baht


42,872




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4341




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5408




INR


Indian rupee


69,5020






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6223 — Aegon/Banca Civica/Cajaburgos Vida) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, insurance company, merger control








C_2011315EN.01000401.xml










28.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6223 — Aegon/Banca Civica/Cajaburgos Vida)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 315/02
On 20 October 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 32011M6223. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1107/2011 of 28 October 2011 establishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in NAFO 3L by vessels flying the flag of Latvia
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Canada, Latvia, North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, catch quota, crustacean, fishing rights, international waters, ship's flag








L_2011287EN.01001701.xml










4.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 287/17








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1107/2011
of 28 October 2011
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for northern prawn in NAFO 3L by vessels flying the flag of Latvia


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 28 October 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 24, 27.1.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


60/T&Q




Member State


Latvia




Stock


PRA/N3L.




Species


Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)




Zone


NAFO 3L




Date


28.9.2011
Case T-564/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, interpretation of the law, parliamentary immunity








C_2012025EN.01005302.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/53






Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek
(Case T-564/11)
(2012/C 25/105)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nigel Paul Farage (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bennett, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament and Jerzy Buzek (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought







—


Revoke the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek, dated 2 March 2010 imposing on the applicant a forfeiture of entitlement to daily subsistence allowance of ten days, as well as the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 24 March 2010 and of the President of the European Parliament of 31 August 2011, declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request for parliamentary immunity; and










—


In the alternative, a declaration that none of the above-mentioned decisions are valid or ought to have been made.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 84, p. 99), as the speech of the applicant on 24 February 2010 was made in his capacity as a member of the European Parliament. As such, the speech in question made political points and it is of prime importance that a member of the European Parliament can speak freely.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of free speech, as no proper account was taken of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2011 L 116, p. 1)










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as any participation of the President of the Parliament in the decision making process in the present matter, or of anybody else who was present during the plenary session of 24 February 2010 and had formed a view, disabled such person from taking part in such process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to correctly interpret Rule 152(1) and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the penalties set out in the latter provision must be read in the context of its opening words, relating primarily to serious cases of disorder or disruption ‘…in violation of the principles laid down in Rule 9…’.
Case C-547/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2011-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, infringement of EU law, mineral oil, tax exemption








C_2012013EN.01000602.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/6





Action brought on 28 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-547/11)
2012/C 13/13
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that:






—


by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (‘Decision 2006/323’), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 6 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and










—


by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (‘Decision 2007/375’), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;














—


order Italy to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing Decision 2006/323 expired on 8 February 2006. The period for implementing Decision 2007/375 expired on 8 June 2007.
To date, the Italian Republic has not yet undertaken the full recovery of the aid declared unlawful by the decisions in question or informed the Commission that recovery has taken place. Moreover, the legal difficulties relied on by Italy as justification for the delay in implementing those decisions are not such as to make recovery absolutely impossible in accordance with the case-law of the Court.
The Commission complains next that, in breach of the obligation under the decisions in question to communicate information, Italy was late in informing it of the progress of the national procedures for implementing the decisions.