do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7059 — Koch Industries/Molex) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, electronic component, fertiliser, fuel, merger control, pollution control








C_2013287EN.01001601.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7059 — Koch Industries/Molex)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 287/12






1.


On 25 September 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Koch Industries, Inc. (‘Koch Industries’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Molex Incorporated (USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Koch Industries: supply of fuels for transportation, energy to heat and cool buildings, fibres, water filtration and pollution control equipment, fertilizer, consumer products, building materials and related products,










—


for Molex: design, manufacture and sale of electronic components, including terminals, connectors, cable assemblies, interconnection systems, sockets, antennas, integrated products and switches for use by original equipment manufacturers.














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.7059 — Koch Industries/Molex, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




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 C-322/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from that principle — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accounting, economic value, purchase price, share capital, tax return








C_2013344EN.01003401.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/34





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA
(Case C-322/12) (1)

(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from that principle - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)
2013/C 344/58
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendant: GIMLE SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition price of assets not reflecting their real value and giving a distorted view of the company’s assets — Obligation to depart from the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost and to recognise them immediately as having their resale value

Operative part of the judgment

The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.


(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Scotland, State aid, United Kingdom, aquaculture, control of State aid, fishery product, food processing








C_2013287EN.01000801.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/8





Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products
2013/C 287/05
Aid No: SA.35761 (13/XF)
Member State: United Kingdom
Region/Authority granting the aid: Scotland
Title of aid scheme/name of company receiving an ad-hoc aid: Seafood Scotland Scheme
Legal basis: Article 37 of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007
Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or amount of ad-hoc aid granted: GBP 600 000
Maximum aid intensity: 100 %
Date of entry into force: 5 November 2012 (or when published by the Commission, whichever is the later)
Duration of the scheme or the individual aid award (not later than 30 June 2014): 
Objective of aid: 






 


Collective actions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector










 


Developments of new markets and promotional campaigns in the fisheries and aquaculture sector










 


Investments in fishing ports, landing sites and shelters




Indicate which of Articles 8 to 24 is used: 






 


Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008










 


Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008










 


Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008




Activity concerned: 






A.3 —


Fishing and aquaculture










C.10.2 —


Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs




Name and address of the granting authority: 





Scottish Government




Rural and Environment Directorate & Marine Scotland




Saughton House




Broomhouse Drive




Edinburgh




EH11 3XD




UNITED KINGDOM




Web address where the full text of the scheme or the criteria and conditions under which ad hoc aid is granted outside of an aid scheme can be found: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Food-Industry/granttimetable/SeafoodScotland
Motivation: indicate why a State aid scheme has been established instead of assistance under the European Fisheries Fund: Although the grant to Seafood Scotland is compatible with the European Fisheries Fund, the competitive nature of the process and the time taken to obtain approval if successful, and the retrospective payment of awards means that the grant is better suited to the exemption regulation.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Netherlands, North Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








C_2013287EN.01000901.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/9





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2013/C 287/06
In accordance with Article 35(3) of 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), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


16.9.2013




Duration


16.9.2013-31.12.2013




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock or group of stocks


HAD/3A/BCD




Species


Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)




Zone


IIIa, EU waters of Subdivisions 22-32




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


50/TQ40






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Special Report No 9/2013 ‘EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU aid, common foreign and security policy








C_2013287EN.01000701.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/7





Special Report No 9/2013 ‘EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’
2013/C 287/04
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 9/2013 ‘EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case C-122/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01002502.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/25





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA
(Case C-122/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
2013/C 344/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by F. Baujoin, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1661/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 February 2009, which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIACTIVE’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case C-523/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, equal treatment, part-time employment, pension scheme








C_2014024EN.01000201.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd
(Case C-523/13)
2014/C 24/02
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Walter Larcher

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd

Questions referred







1.


Does the principle of equality laid down in Article 39(2) EC (now Article 45(2) TFEU) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) preclude a national provision under which it is a condition of entitlement to an old-age pension following part-time work for older employees that the part-time work for older employees was pursued under the legislation of that Member State, and not of another Member State?










2.


If so, what requirements does the principle of equal treatment in Article 39(2) EC (now Article 45(2) TFEU) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 impose on the assimilation of part-time work for older employees completed under the legislation of the other Member State as a condition of entitlement to a national old-age pension:






(a)


Is a comparative examination of the conditions for part-time work for older employees needed?










(b)


If so, is it sufficient that the part-time work for older employees in both Member States is essentially the same in content, in terms of its functioning and structure?










(c)


Or must the conditions for part-time work for older employees in both Member States be identical in content?










(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
Case C-267/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system — Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia — Period from 2008 to 2012)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Latvia, greenhouse gas, infringement of EU law, pollution control








C_2013344EN.01000602.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-267/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system - Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia - Period from 2008 to 2012)
2013/C 344/07
Language of the case: Latvian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and E. White, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš, acting as Agent), Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Intervener in support of Republic of Latvia: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012, under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Misinterpretation of the procedure provided for in Article 9(3) of the directive — Erroneous application of the three-month time limit, laid down for initial decisions on new notified national allocation plans for greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP), to a Commission decision accepting amendments to an NAP notified following a decision on the part of the Commission to reject the initial NAP

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Latvia and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
Case C-524/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company law, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, share capital








C_2013367EN.01002502.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg
(Case C-524/13)
2013/C 367/45
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eycke Braun

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Question referred

Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees received by a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company constitute taxes for the purposes of that Directive, even if the conversion does not lead to an increase in the capital of the acquiring or transforming company?


(1)  OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.

(2)  Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23).
Case C-317/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg (Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Obligation to install recording equipment — Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods — Concept — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic support, road transport, speed control








C_2013344EN.01003301.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/33





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg
(Case C-317/12) (1)

(Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to install recording equipment - Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods - Concept - Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)
2013/C 344/56
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Daniel Lundberg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 concerning the interpretation of the concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ within the meaning of Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Derogation from the obligation to install and use a tachograph on board vehicles weighing less than 7.5 tonnes — Carriage of goods for non-commercial purposes — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from private individuals or from companies

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ laid down in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as covering the carriage of goods by a private individual for his own purposes purely as part of his hobby where that hobby is in part financed by financial contributions from external persons or undertakings and where no payment is made for that carriage per se.


(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.