do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6573 — ForFarmers/Agricola)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, economic concentration, merger control, raw material








C_2012162EN.01001501.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6573 — ForFarmers/Agricola)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 162/11






1.


On 31 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 ForFarmers UK Ltd (‘ForFarmers UK’, United Kingdom), controlled by ForFarmers Group BV (‘ForFarmers’, The Netherlands), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Agricola Group Ltd (‘Agricola’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ForFarmers: production and supply of animal feed and other agricultural commodities, broiler breeders and miscellaneous agricultural services; supply of raw materials to the feed, food and fuel industry via its subsidiary Cefetra BV,










—


for Agricola: holding company for a group of companies operating under the trade name BOCM Pauls active in the supply of animal feed primarily in the United Kingdom.














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.6573 — ForFarmers/Agricola, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6305 — DFDS/C.RO Ports/Älvsborg)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, harbour installation, maritime transport, merger control








C_2012162EN.01000101.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6305 — DFDS/C.RO Ports/Älvsborg)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 162/01
On 2 April 2012, 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 32012M6305. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-255/12: Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Vakili v Council
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, self-employed person








C_2012258EN.01002302.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/23





Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Vakili v Council
(Case T-255/12)
2012/C 258/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bahman Vakili (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Council’s decision to include the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions which follows from Decision 2011/783/CFSP, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 and the Council’s letter of 23 March 2012;










—


Annul Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as it includes the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, since the statement of reasons for the penalty affecting the applicant does not contain any specific and concrete reason to justify that sanction.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection, since the applicant was not heard in the proceedings which led to a penalty being imposed on him, as the Council did not send him the evidence against him and as the applicant was not in a position effectively to make known his view in that regard.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Council was not empowered to penalise a person on the sole basis that he is president of the board of directors and chief executive of an entity also subject to sanctions.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact, since the applicant cannot be held liable for what was allegedly done by the Export Development Bank of Iran before the applicant took up his duties with that company. In addition, the applicant disputes the existence of the alleged actions of the company which he directs.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the penalty imposed is not such as to achieve the objectives which it is intended to pursue.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property, since the applicant has not been in a position effectively to defend his rights and was penalised on the basis of non-existent legal bases.
Case F-60/12: Action brought on 08 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: admission to examinations, competition (EU), promotion








C_2012243EN.01003402.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/34





Action brought on 08 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-60/12)
2012/C 243/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Guerrieri Piaceri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to grant the Applicant six promotion points under the 2011 promotion procedure, the revision of the appraisal report and the attribution of the necessary points in order to be promoted to the grade AST 2.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the appraisal report appraising the Applicant for the period 01.01.2010 — 31.12.2010 and the decision awarding the applicant two promotion points for the same period;










—


as a consequence of the annulment, order the defendant to undertake a further examination of the appraisal report of the Applicant, awarding the necessary points for promoting her to AST2 with retroactive effect from 01.01.2011;










—


order the defendant to pay the sum estimated ex aequo et bono EUR 20 000,00 (including procedure costs).
Case C-289/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2012 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-535/11 Altner v Commission
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, audit, infringement procedure (EU), party financing, political parties, powers of the institutions (EU), right to justice








C_2013141EN.01000801.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/8





Appeal brought on 8 June 2012 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-535/11 Altner v Commission
(Case C-289/12 P)
2013/C 141/12
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Zdeněk Altner (represented by: J. Čapek, advokát)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Zdeněk Altner to bear his own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012162EN.01000301.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 June 2012
2012/C 162/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2595




JPY


Japanese yen


100,08




DKK


Danish krone


7,4335




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80860




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9664




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2011




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5885




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,325




HUF


Hungarian forint


295,05




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6970




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2700




RON


Romanian leu


4,4658




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2964




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2613




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2892




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7716




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6272




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6025




KRW


South Korean won


1 472,47




ZAR


South African rand


10,4025




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0152




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5645




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 864,11




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9843




PHP


Philippine peso


54,384




RUB


Russian rouble


40,6410




THB


Thai baht


39,649




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5557




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5537




INR


Indian rupee


69,2030






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6439 — AGRANA/RWA/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, agricultural product, building materials, economic concentration, energy industry, fruit, merger control, starch, sugar








C_2012162EN.01000102.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6439 — AGRANA/RWA/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 162/02
On 4 April 2012, 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 32012M6439. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6446 — Pratt & Whitney/International Aero Engines)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2012162EN.01000201.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6446 — Pratt & Whitney/International Aero Engines)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 162/03
On 4 June 2012, 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 32012M6446. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Notice of creditors' meeting of AB bankas Snoras Pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, claim, credit institution, economic reconstruction, financial intervention, liquidation








C_2012162EN.01001101.xml










8.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/11





Notice of creditors' meeting of AB bankas Snoras Pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions
2012/C 162/09

AB bankas Snoras (in bankruptcy)


Notice of First Creditors’ Meeting

The first creditors’ meeting of AB bankas Snoras (in bankruptcy) (‘Snoras’) is to be held on Tuesday 12 June 2012 at ‘Siemens’ arena, Ozo st. 14, Vilnius, Lithuania (the ‘Creditors’ Meeting’). The registration process for the Creditors’ Meeting will start at 9 am and the Creditors’ Meeting at 12 noon Vilnius time (EET) on this day.
The formal business of the meeting is to approve the agenda of the Creditors’ Meeting, appoint the secretary to the Creditors’ Meeting proposed by the Snoras Bankruptcy Administrator and elect a chairperson of the Creditors’ Meeting and the Snoras creditors’ committee. All creditors who submitted claims in the bankruptcy proceedings and whose claims have been approved by the Vilnius Regional Court prior to the Creditors’ Meeting are entitled to attend and vote at the Creditors’ Meeting. In addition, creditors have the option to vote ahead of the meeting. Creditors will however not prejudice their claims and entitlement to dividend, should there be one, if they do not attend or vote at the Creditors’ Meeting.
Pre-registration of the creditors’ intention to attend the Creditors’ Meeting will assist the admission of creditors to the Creditors’ Meeting and is therefore strongly recommended. For more information on registering for and voting at the Creditors’ Meeting, please refer to Snoras website at http://www.snoras.com
Case T-253/12: Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission
Date: 2012-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, Sweden, bankruptcy, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, market prices, public property








C_2012258EN.01002301.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/23





Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission
(Case T-253/12)
2012/C 258/42
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul, entirely or in part, the European Commission’s decision of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/2010, ex NN 42/2010 and ex CP 194/2009) which Sweden granted in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg;










—


Order the European Commission 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 infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
The applicant claims that the municipality of Vänersborg did not grant unlawful aid to the applicant within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by selling and letting publicly owned property below the property’s market value. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission made a series of incorrect assessments as regards the legal classification of the alleged State aid measures in that:






—


the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the purchase of the installation at an earlier stage for SEK 17 million could constitute State aid;










—


the Commission failed to take into account that the actual sale price of SEK 8 million was in accordance with the installation’s market value;










—


the Commission disregarded the principle of a private investor in a market economy, by fixing the value at a later stage at different value time points as the basis of its decision before the actual sale to a private investor;










—


the so-called ‘third estimate in the PwC report’ at the value time point of March 2008 did not constitute a reliable indicator of the true market value of the installation, and










—


the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the installation was quite simply sold at a later stage for SEK 8 million in May 2011 after an open bidding procedure as part of the new owners’ insolvency.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the alleged State aid did not distort competition and did not affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation to carry out investigations and duty to state reasons and the applicant’s rights of the defence.