do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6421 — Daimler/Europcar/car2go Europe JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, vehicle rental








C_2012003EN.01000101.xml










6.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6421 — Daimler/Europcar/car2go Europe JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 3/01
On 22 December 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 32011M6421. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012003EN.01000201.xml










6.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 January 2012
2012/C 3/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2832




JPY


Japanese yen


98,67




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82675




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8461




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2187




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6825




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,914




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,78




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6983




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5054




RON


Romanian leu


4,3390




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4185




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2491




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3039




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9647




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6399




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6562




KRW


South Korean won


1 482,77




ZAR


South African rand


10,5038




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0980




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5330




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 800,87




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0389




PHP


Philippine peso


56,579




RUB


Russian rouble


41,0830




THB


Thai baht


40,588




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3551




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6040




INR


Indian rupee


67,9130






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-16/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid recipient, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, trading operation








C_2012109EN.01001502.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/15





Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission
(Case T-16/12)
2012/C 109/35
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), Vereniging It Fryske Gea (Olterterp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Overijssel (Dalfsen, Netherlands); Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands); Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands); Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Wilhelminadorp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (Haaren, Netherlands); Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Lomm, Netherlands); and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (’s-Graveland, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, which are similar to those put forward in Case T-15/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission.
Case C-9/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 6 January 2012 — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, competition, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, service concession








C_2012073EN.01002201.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 6 January 2012 — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA
(Case C-9/12)
2012/C 73/38
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corman-Collins SA

Defendant: La Maison du Whisky SA

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where appropriate in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) and (b), be interpreted as precluding a rule of jurisdiction, such as that set out in Article 4 of the Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, which provides for the jurisdiction of Belgian courts where the exclusive distributor has its registered office in Belgian territory and where the distribution agreement covers all or part of that territory, irrespective of where the grantor of the exclusive distribution rights has its registered office, where the latter is the defendant?










2.


Should Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an exclusive distribution of goods agreement, pursuant to which one party purchases goods from another party for resale in the territory of another Member State?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative, should Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that it refers to an exclusive distribution agreement, such as that at issue between the parties?










4.


If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, is the contested obligation in the event of the termination of an exclusive distribution agreement the obligation of the seller-grantor or that of the buyer-distributor?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the address of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, head office, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_2012003EN.01001001.xml










6.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/10





Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the address of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate
2012/C 3/06
Imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008 of 1 December 2008 (1).
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, a company located in the People's Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of citric acid are subject to an anti-dumping duty of 33,8 % imposed pursuant to Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008, has informed the Commission that on 17 June 2011, it has changed its address to Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.
The company has argued that the change of address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous address of The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008. Therefore, the reference to:
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC
should be read as:
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC
in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2008.
The TARIC additional code A882 previously attributed to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC shall apply to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.


(1)  OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 1.
Case T-15/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid recipient, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, trading operation








C_2012109EN.01001501.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/15





Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission
(Case T-15/12)
2012/C 109/34
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Provincie Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands); Provincie Friesland (Leeuwarden, Netherlands); Provincie Drenthe (Assen, Netherlands); Provincie Overijssel (Zwolle, Netherlands); Provincie Gelderland (Arnhem, Netherlands); Provincie Flevoland (Lelystad, Netherlands); Provincie Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Holland (Haarlem, Netherlands); Provincie Zuid-Holland (The Hague, Netherlands); Provincie Zeeland (Middelburg, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Brabant (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands); and Provincie Limburg (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as nature conservation societies are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme, or, in the further alternative, annul that decision in so far as land management organisations are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;










—


order the Commission to pay the 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 misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU and infringement of European Union law.






—


Nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest. European Union competition law is therefore inapplicable;










—


Nature managers, nature conservation societies or land management organisations are wrongly categorised as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;










—


The subsidy scheme does not, in view of the conditions associated with that scheme, lead to an economic advantage for the beneficiaries for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;










—


The Commission erred in its application of the fourth condition referred to in the judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747;










—


The subsidy scheme does not have the effect of affecting trade between Member States.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the address of a company
Date: 2012-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, head office, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_2012003EN.01001101.xml










6.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/11





Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the address of a company
2012/C 3/07
The undertakings offered in the framework of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China were accepted by Commission Decision 2008/899/EC (1).
Weifang Ensign, a company located in the People's Republic of China, whose undertaking was accepted by Decision 2008/899/EC, has informed the Commission that on 17 June 2011 it has changed its address to Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.
The company has argued that the change of address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the terms of the undertaking accepted under its previous address of The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC.
The Commission has examined the information provided and has concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Decision 2008/899/EC. Therefore, the reference, in Article 1 of Decision 2008/899/EC to:
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC
should be read as:
Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC
The TARIC additional code A882 previously attributed to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC shall apply to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.


(1)  OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 62.