do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6606 — Toshiba/IBM's Retail Stores Solutions business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, office supplies, retail selling








C_2012158EN.01002501.xml










5.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6606 — Toshiba/IBM's Retail Stores Solutions business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 158/07






1.


On 24 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Toshiba Tec Corporation (‘Tec’, Japan) controlled by Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of IBM’s Retail Store Solutions business (‘IBM RSS’, USA) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Tec: manufacturing and global marketing of products and business solutions in four core areas: (i) retail solutions, (ii) office solutions, (iii) supply chain solutions and (iv) inkjet heads. Tec falls within Toshiba’s Digital Products business domain,










—


for IBM RSS: development and distribution of retail solutions, including point-of-sale (‘POS’) systems, self service systems, and related maintenance and technical support services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6606 — Toshiba/IBM's Retail Stores Solutions business, 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’).
Case T-214/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Methacrylates market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation in a part of the cartel — Rights of the defence — Fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity of the infringement — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Duration of procedure — Reasonable time)
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, competition, equal treatment, fine, infringement of EU law, offence, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2012209EN.01000701.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/7





Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission
(Case T-214/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Methacrylates market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Participation in a part of the cartel - Rights of the defence - Fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Duration of procedure - Reasonable time)
2012/C 209/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by D. Anderson QC, H. Rosenblatt, B. Lebrun, lawyers, W. Turner, S. Berwick and T. Soames, Solicitors, subsequently by R. Wesseling and C. Swaak and lastly by R. Wesseling, C. Swaak and F. ten Have, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Amato, subsequently by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Arbault and lastly by V. Bottka and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed under that provision.

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6584 — Vodafone/Cable & Wireless Worldwide)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2012158EN.01002601.xml










5.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/26





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6584 — Vodafone/Cable & Wireless Worldwide)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 158/08






1.


On 29 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Vodafone Group Plc (‘Vodafone’) will acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over Cable & Wireless Worldwide Plc (‘CWW’) by purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Vodafone is the holding company of a group of companies that is involved in the operation of mobile telecommunications networks and the provision of related telecommunications services. It has wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries as well as partner networks which are mobile operators globally. Some Vodafone operating companies also provide fixed line voice and broadband services,










—


CWW is a global telecoms company providing a wide range of voice, data, hosting and IP-based services and applications across the UK, Asia Pacific, India, Middle East & Africa, Continental Europe and North America.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6584 — Vodafone/Cable & Wireless Worldwide, 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’).
Case F-71/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Cantisani v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the contract staff — Conference interpreter — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Conflict of interest — Claim for compensation)
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, information profession, psychological harassment, servant (EU)








C_2012217EN.01003002.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/30





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Cantisani v Commission
(Case F-71/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Members of the contract staff - Conference interpreter - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Conflict of interest - Claim for compensation)
2012/C 217/63
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nicola Cantisani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. de Lannoy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Barquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance in respect of psychological harassment and claim for compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Cantisani to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 49.
Case T-249/12: Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Vestel Iberia v Commission
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, Türkiye, anti-dumping legislation, import (EU), import licence








C_2012235EN.01001401.xml










4.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/14





Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Vestel Iberia v Commission
(Case T-249/12)
2012/C 235/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vestel Iberia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision COM(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/08), notified to the applicant on 12 April 2012;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 import duties were entered in the account contrary to Article 220(2)(b) Community Customs Code (CCC) (1), since the defendant erroneously considered that anti-dumping regulations adopted against imports from third countries are automatically applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union, and as a result, the defendant erroneously failed to inform traders that the AD Regulation concerned was also applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Alternatively, the Turkish authorities committed an error when they confirmed that the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods from third countries were not applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Furthermore, the Spanish customs authorities also committed an error since they assumed that goods accompanied by an A.TR certificate could not be subject to any additional duties or trade protection measures, and failed to inform economic operator that their imports from Turkey could be subject to trade measures, even if such goods were in free circulation.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging






—


that the error committed by the competent customs authorities could not have been reasonably detected by the person liable for payment, having acted in good faith and having complied with all the provisions laid down by legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging






—


that the applicant finds itself in a special situation of Article 239 CCC, and that no deception or obvious negligence can be attributed to him pursuant to Article 239 CCC.










(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1)
Case C-124/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA (Appeal — State aid — Waiver of a tax claim — Exemption from corporation tax — Increase in share capital — Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy — Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power — Definition of ‘reference private investor’ — Principle of equal treatment — Burden of proof)
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, capital increase, corporation tax, equal treatment, share capital, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2012217EN.01000201.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA
(Case C-124/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Waiver of a tax claim - Exemption from corporation tax - Increase in share capital - Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy - Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power - Definition of ‘reference private investor’ - Principle of equal treatment - Burden of proof)
2012/C 217/02
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents), Iberdrola SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, avocats)

Supported by: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Alterskjær, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 15 December 2009, by which the General Court (Third Chamber) annulled Articles 3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2003 on the State aid granted to EDF and the electricity and gas industries (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003) — Aid granted in the form of a selective tax exemption linked to an increase in share capital during a recapitalisation of the undertaking — Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy — Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power — Principle of equal tax treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the French Republic and Iberdrola SA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Case T-431/11: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Iberdrola v Commission
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, energy industry, shareholding, tax system








C_2012217EN.01002901.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/29





Order of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Iberdrola v Commission
(Case T-431/11) (1)

2012/C 217/61
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-250/12: Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Uralita v Commission
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building industry, building materials, fine, restriction on competition








C_2012243EN.01002601.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/26





Action brought on 5 June 2012 — Uralita v Commission
(Case T-250/12)
2012/C 243/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 1(2) of the Decision of the European Commission C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008)2626 of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — SODIUM CHLORATE), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 231 000 on the applicant;










—


Article 2 of the Commission’s decision C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012 — Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate; 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 two alternative pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision to impose a fine after the expiry of the limitation period contained in Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), and to retain the interest accrued on this sum, was unlawful.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that it was unlawful for the Commission to withhold the amount of the fine imposed by Decision C(2012) 1965 of 27 March 2012, including interest, before the fine became due.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6285 — Saria/Danish Crown/Daka JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, economic concentration, meat processing industry, merger control








C_2012158EN.01002301.xml










5.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6285 — Saria/Danish Crown/Daka JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 158/05






1.


On 24 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG (‘Saria’, Germany), controlled by the Rethmann group (Germany), indirectly via its subsidiary Saria Bio-Industries Denmark ApS (‘Saria Denmark’, Denmark), and Danish Crown A/S (‘Danish Crown’, Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Daka Denmark A/S (‘Daka’, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Saria: collection, processing and sale of animal, vegetable and agricultural by-products,










—


for Danish Crown: slaughtering of pigs and cattle, meat processing and meat trading,










—


for Daka: sourcing, processing, and sale or disposal of animal by-products.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6285 — Saria/Danish Crown/Daka 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’).
Case F-84/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Chatzidoukakis v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions of grant — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, economic support, education grant, remuneration of work








C_2012217EN.01003101.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/31





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Chatzidoukakis v Commission
(Case F-84/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions of grant - Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)
2012/C 217/65
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Efstratios Chatzidoukakis (Schrassig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, Agent, and E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission whereby the education allowance granted to the applicant was reduced on the basis that his son receives financial assistance from a Member State by way of a grant and a loan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Chatzidoukakis to pay the European Commission’s costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 39.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6617 — Baycliffe/Trafigura/Blue Ocean) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, raw material








C_2012158EN.01002801.xml










5.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/28





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6617 — Baycliffe/Trafigura/Blue Ocean)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 158/10






1.


On 29 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Baycliffe Limited (‘Baycliffe’, Isle of Man) and Trafigura Beheer B.V. (‘Trafigura’, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control of Blue Ocean Associates Limited, (‘Blue Ocean’, UK) and Baycliffe intends to acquire also within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of two subsidiaries of Blue Ocean, Blue Ocean International Limited (‘BOIL’) and Blue Ocean Mineralol GmbH (‘BOG’).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Blue Ocean: blending, marketing and distribution of diesel and gasoline products to retail and commercial customers; trading and marketing of petrochemical by-products,










—


Baycliffe: investment firm involved in radio broadcasting, coffee/food retail, on-line recruitment, disaster recovery services, aircraft leasing and mobile telecommunications,










—


Trafigura: trading of physical commodities, sourcing and trading of crude oil, petroleum products, renewable fuels, non-ferrous concentrates and refined metals.














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.6617 — Baycliffe/Trafigura/Blue Ocean, 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’).