do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6331 — KKR/Silver Lake/Go Daddy Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, economic concentration, financial management, investment company, merger control








C_2011358EN.01000101.xml










8.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6331 — KKR/Silver Lake/Go Daddy Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 358/01
On 12 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 32011M6331. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-389/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper plumbing tubes — Fines — Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration — Effective judicial remedy)
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copper, fine, iron and steel industry, restriction on competition, tube








C_2012032EN.01001001.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission
(Case C-389/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)
2012/C 32/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, advokat, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, acting as Agents, C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 in Case T-25/05 KME Germany and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) (notified under No C(2004) 2826), concerning a system of allocation of production volumes and market shares, and the setting of targets and price increases on the European market for copper plumbing tubes

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Case C-386/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper plumbing tubes — Fines — Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration — Effective judicial remedy)
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copper, fine, restriction on competition, tube








C_2012032EN.01000902.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission
(Case C-386/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)
2012/C 32/15
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon (represented by: I. Forrester QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Grippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents, B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-21/05 Chalkor v Commission by which the Court reduced the fine imposed on the appellant by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper Plumbing Tubes) (notified under document number C(2004) 2826), concerning a system for the allocation of production volume and market shares and the establishment of objectives and price increases in the European market for copper plumbing tubes

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Notice on the Code of good labelling practice for pet food
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: food policy, labelling, marketing standard, pet food, product quality








C_2011358EN.01004901.xml










8.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/49





Notice on the Code of good labelling practice for pet food
2011/C 358/07
In accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC:
Title: CODE OF GOOD LABELLING PRACTICE FOR PET FOOD, version of October 2011
Author: European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF): http://www.fediaf.org
Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/index_en.htm
Case T-421/07: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — No prior definitive decision — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, postal service








C_2012025EN.01004602.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/46






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission
(Case T-421/07) (1)

(State aid - Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - No prior definitive decision - Inadmissibility)
(2012/C 25/87)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan and B. Martenczuk, and subsequently by Martenczuk and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) [EC] in respect of State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07))

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Deutsche Post AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders UPS Europe NV/SA and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
Case T-39/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of information technology services relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of an internet portal — Rejection of a tender and award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet site, award of contract, invitation to tender, liability, provision of services, services contract








C_2012025EN.01004701.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/47






Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-39/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of information technology services relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of an internet portal - Rejection of a tender and award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Non-contractual liability)
(2012/C 25/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, improvement, promotion and maintenance of the Commission’s internet portal for ‘e-learning’ (elearningeuropa.info) (OJ 2007 S 87), and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of the European Commission’s internet portal on eLearning (elearningeuropa.info), and awarding the contract to another tenderer;










2.


Dismisses the application for damages;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case C-81/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic (Appeal — State aid — France Télécom’s business tax regime — Concept of ‘aid’ — Legitimate expectations — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of legal certainty)
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, tax collection, telecommunications industry








C_2012032EN.01000601.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic
(Case C-81/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime - Concept of ‘aid’ - Legitimate expectations - Limitation period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of legal certainty)
2012/C 32/09
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, L. Olza Moreno and L. Godfroid, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France and France Télécom v Commission by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the French Republic and the appellant for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State aid implemented by France (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30) — Misapplication of the concepts of ‘State aid’ and ‘advantage’ in connection with France Télécom’s business tax regime for the period 1994 to 2002 — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations — Limitation period for State aid — Obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of legal certainty

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Opinion of the EFTA Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions concerning a draft decision relating to Case 59120 — Color Line — 8 December 2011
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Sweden, dominant position, fine, harbour installation








C_2012180EN.01000301.xml










21.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/3





Opinion of the EFTA Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions concerning a draft decision relating to Case 59120 — Color Line
8 December 2011
2012/C 180/03






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s definition of the relevant market.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that from 1 January 1994 to 20 December 2005 the long-term exclusive rights held by Color Line pursuant to the 1991 harbour agreement to use the harbour facilities at Torskholmen in Strömstad had the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that Color Line has not shown that the conditions laid down in Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement are satisfied in this case.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that Color Line was dominant on the relevant market from 1 January 1994 to 20 December 2005.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that from 1 January 1994 to 20 December 2005 the long-term exclusive rights held by Color Line pursuant to the 1991 harbour agreement to use the harbour facilities at Torskholmen in Strömstad amounted to an abuse of Color Line’s dominant position within the meaning of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees that, during the period under examination, the harbour agreement was capable of affecting trade between contracting parties within the meaning of Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 7(1) and Article 23(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










9.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement.
Case T-633/11: Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, administrative transparency, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, floor coverings, import (EU), infringement of EU law, originating product, rights of the defence








C_2012032EN.01004001.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/40





Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council
(Case T-633/11)
2012/C 32/79
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Guangdong Kito Ceramics Co. Ltd (Foshan, China), Jingdezhen Kito Ceramic Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China), Jingdezhen Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China) and Zhaoqing Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Sihui, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is lacking sufficient reasoning.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested regulation was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principle of sound administration, transparency and with the right of defence of the applicants and infringed upon Article 18(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1270/2011 of 6 December 2011 fixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar ( OJ L 324, 7.12.2011 )
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export (EU), export licence, quantitative restriction, sugar




L_2011325EN.01006301.xml










8.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 325/63







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1270/2011 of 6 December 2011 fixing an acceptance percentage for the issuing of export licences, rejecting export-licence applications and suspending the lodging of export-licence applications for out-of-quota sugar
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 324 of 7 December 2011
)

On page 27, recital 3:
for:







‘(3)


The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’,





read:







‘(3)


The quantities of sugar covered by applications for export licences exceed the quantitative limit fixed by Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2011. An acceptance percentage should therefore be set for quantities applied for on 1 December 2011 and 2 December 2011. All export-licence applications for sugar lodged after 2 December 2011 should accordingly be rejected and the lodging of export-licence applications should be suspended,’;





on page 27, Article (1):
for:


‘1.   Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 December 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 51,679586 %.’,


read:


‘1.   Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for which applications were lodged on 1 December 2011 and 2 December 2011 shall be issued for the quantities applied for, multiplied by an acceptance percentage of 51,679586 %.’.
Case C-631/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, common market, competition, control of State aid, hotel industry, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty








C_2012118EN.01000802.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/8





Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
(Case C-631/11 P)
2012/C 118/13
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

Form of order sought







—


Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085;










—


Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.
The first ground of appeal concerns breach of Article 107(3) TFEU. In particular, the appellant alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid and of the principle of the incentive effect, as a result of an excessively formalistic approach, which is contrary to the principle that the substance must take precedence over the form, and failure to take account of specific details relating to issues of transitional law which characterise the case in question.
The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1) The bases of this ground of appeal arise from the specific intertemporal circumstances of the case, which were disregarded in the judgment under appeal. The General Court went beyond what is prescribed by the relevant case-law, requiring of the economic operator a degree of diligence that is not possible in practice, given that the requirement that an application for aid be made before work commences is a Community rule which was introduced at exactly the same time as the facts of the case and, therefore, the undertaking could not have been aware of it at the time at which it made its decision.


(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.