do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, control of State aid, economic recession, financial services








C_2013314EN.01000201.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/2





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 314/02







Date of adoption of the decision


6.9.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37315 (13/N)




Member State


Slovenia




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Rescue aid in favour of Factor Banka




Legal basis


Act Determing the Measures of the Republic of Slovenia to Strengthen Bank Stability
Banking act




Type of measure


Individual aid


Factor banka




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 540 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


From 6.9.2013




Economic sectors


Financial and insurance activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




Župančičeva 3




SI-1000 Ljubljana




SLOVENIJA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, control of State aid, economic recession, financial services








C_2013314EN.01000101.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 314/01







Date of adoption of the decision


6.9.2013




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37314 (13/N)




Member State


Slovenia




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Rescue aid in favour to Probanka




Legal basis


Act Determing the Measures of the Republic of Slovenia to Strengthen Bank Stability
Banking act




Type of measure


Individual aid


Probanka




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 490 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


From 6.9.2013




Economic sectors


Financial and insurance activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Finance




Župančičeva 3




SI-1000 Ljubljana




SLOVENIJA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7057 — Suntory/GlaxoSmithKline (Ribena & Lucozade Soft Drinks Business))  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_2013314EN.01000801.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7057 — Suntory/GlaxoSmithKline (Ribena & Lucozade Soft Drinks Business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 314/08






1.


On 22 October 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Suntory Beverage & Food Limited (‘SBF’, Japan), ultimately controlled by Suntory Holdings Limited (‘Suntory’, Japan), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the Ribena and Lucozade soft drink business (‘the Target Business’, the United Kingdom) from GlaxoSmithKline plc (the United Kingdom) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Suntory: production, manufacturing and distribution of soft drinks products,










—


for the Target Business: manufacture, distribution and sale of soft drinks products under the Lucozade and Ribena brands.














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.7057 — Suntory/GlaxoSmithKline (Ribena & Lucozade Soft Drinks Business), 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’).
Case C-561/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, sugar








C_2014045EN.01001703.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hoštická a.s. and Others v Ministerstvo zemědělství
(Case C-561/13)
2014/C 45/32
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 126 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) to be interpreted such that the separate sugar payment is a decoupled payment?










2.


Is Article 126(1) of Council Regulation No 73/2009 to be interpreted such that ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ include the representative period chosen by the Member State at that time on the basis of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (2) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006? (3)







(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 32).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 29 October 2013 in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger (Case E-24/13)
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: award of contract, gaming establishment, invitation to tender, transparency in decision-making








C_2014088EN.01001801.xml










27.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/18





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 29 October 2013 in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger
(Case E-24/13)
2014/C 88/15
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 November 2013 from Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger, on the following questions:






1.


What are the general requirements of EEA law and European law (in particular Articles 43 and 49 EC and the obligation of transparency derived therefrom) regarding the procedure for awarding casino concessions?










2.


Does EEA law or European law require that an authority seeking to award a concession states at the time at which it publishes its tender notice how it intends to supplement and specify in greater detail the requirements set out in the act and the regulation?










3.


In particular, in the context of the relevant tendering procedure, is there a general obligation to give prior notice of the relative weighting that will be given to the award criteria when awarding the concession? If that question is answered in the affirmative, what requirements do EEA law and European law impose as regards the substance of the information that must be provided in that prior notice?










4.


In the case at hand, were the requirements of EEA law and European law satisfied?










5.


If the EFTA Court finds that the tendering procedure did not comply with the requirements of EEA law and European law:






(a)


Do EEA law and European law establish specific legal consequences in the case of procedural errors of that kind?










(b)


Can procedural errors of that kind be cured? If so, under what conditions?










(c)


In the case at hand, were the requirements met to set aside the whole tendering and concession award procedure?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6941 — PIPER/G+J/G+J RBA)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: book trade, broadcasting, economic concentration, merger control, serial publication, television








C_2013314EN.01000301.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6941 — PIPER/G+J/G+J RBA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 314/03
On 24 October 2013, 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 German 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 32013M6941. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, United Kingdom, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, ship's flag








C_2013314EN.01000701.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/7





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2013/C 314/07
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


8.10.2013




Duration


8.10.2013-31.12.2013




Member State


United Kingdom




Stock or group of stocks


USK/1214EI




Species


Tusk (Brosme brosme)




Zone


EU and international waters of I, II and XIV




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


62/TQ40






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-557/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, judicial proceedings








C_2014015EN.01000902.xml










18.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2013 — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH
(Case C-557/13)
2014/C 15/12
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: Hermann Lutz

Applicant and respondent: Elke Bäuerle as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1436/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, [the Insolvency Regulation]) applicable if the payment challenged by the insolvency administrator of a sum attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of the proceedings?










2.


If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: does the defence under Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also apply to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law which governs the dispute concerning the contested legal transaction (lex causae)?










3.


If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative: are the relevant procedural requirements for asserting a claim for the purpose of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation also to be determined according to the lex causae or by the lex fori concursus?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7033 — Nippon Express/NEC Corporation/NEC Logistics)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, computer equipment, economic concentration, logistics, merger control, work of art








C_2013314EN.01000302.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7033 — Nippon Express/NEC Corporation/NEC Logistics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 314/04
On 21 October 2013, 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 32013M7033. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-567/13: Action brought on 29 October 2013 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office supplies, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01002401.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/24





Action brought on 29 October 2013 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)
(Case T-567/13)
2014/C 24/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sharp KK (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2013 given in Case R 2131/2012-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘BIG PAD’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 887 231

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013314EN.01000401.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 October 2013
2013/C 314/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3784




JPY


Japanese yen


134,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4596




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85340




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7464




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2343




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1300




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,732




HUF


Hungarian forint


292,73




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7029




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1855




RON


Romanian leu


4,4385




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7373




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4387




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4396




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6871




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6621




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7062




KRW


South Korean won


1 462,91




ZAR


South African rand


13,5620




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3888




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6255




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 234,68




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3220




PHP


Philippine peso


59,389




RUB


Russian rouble


43,9035




THB


Thai baht


42,817




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0115




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7631




INR


Indian rupee


84,8060






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2013) 3076
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, animal welfare, complaint to the Commission, domestic animal








C_2013314EN.01000901.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/9





Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2013) 3076
2013/C 314/09






1.


The European Commission has received, and continues to receive, a series of complaints about the welfare and management of stray dogs in Romania.










2.


The Commission has registered, and will continue to register, these complaints under reference number CHAP(2013) 3076.










3.


Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgement of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the Internet at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm










4.


The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of the Commission's examination of the complaints and any follow-up action it may decide to take.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code ( OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1 )
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, export (EU), import (EU)




L_2013287EN.01009001.xml










29.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 287/90







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 269 of 10 October 2013, p. 1
)

Page 7, recital (57), second sentence
for:
"(…). The other provisions should apply from 1 June 2016."
read:
"(…). The other provisions should apply from 1 May 2016."
Page 88, Article 288(2)
for:


"2.   Articles other than those referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply as from 1 June 2016."


read:


"2.   Articles other than those referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply as from 1 May 2016.".
Case C-558/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko
Date: 2013-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2014045EN.01001701.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko
(Case C-558/13)
2014/C 45/30
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

Defendant: Marián Vasko

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.