do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7090 — Vopak/Swedegas/GO4LNG JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy transport, gas pipeline, merger control, oil pipeline








C_2013332EN.01001501.xml










15.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7090 — Vopak/Swedegas/GO4LNG JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 332/05






1.


On 8 November 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Vopak LNG Holding Sweden BV, controlled by Koninklijke Vopak NV (‘Vopak’, The Netherlands) and Swedegas AB (‘Swedegas’, Sweden) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over GO4LNG Göteborg AB (‘GO4LNG’, Sweden) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Vopak: a worldwide independent tank storage provider, specialized in the storage and handling of liquid chemicals, gases and oil products,










—


for Swedegas: it is the certified Transmission System Operator for the Swedish high-pressure Swedish Transmission System,










—


for GO4LNG: it will build, own, maintain and operate a Liquefied Natural Gas distribution terminal in Gothenburg (Sweden).














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.7090 — Vopak/Swedegas/GO4LNG JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




MADO 1




1210 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-578/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 15 November 2013 — Hans-Jürgen Kickler and Others v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2013-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, composition, dissemination of information, liability of the State, public debt, securities








C_2014024EN.01000702.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 15 November 2013 — Hans-Jürgen Kickler and Others v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-578/13)
2014/C 24/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kiel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Hans-Jürgen Kickler, Walter Wöhlk, Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action by which the person acquiring government bonds of the defendant makes payment claims against the defendant in the form of claims for performance and damages is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1(1) of the Regulation, in the case where the acquirer did not accept the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012, which was made possible by Greek Law No 4050/2012 (‘Greek-Bondholder-Act’)?










2.


Does an action which is essentially based on the ineffectiveness or invalidity of the aforementioned Greek-Bondholder-Act concern the liability of a State for actions or omissions in the exercise of State authority, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1(1) of the Regulation?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).
Case T-598/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
Date: 2013-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01003002.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/30





Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
(Case T-598/13)
2014/C 24/55
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanctuary Brands LLC (New Canaan, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richter International Ltd (Scarborough, Canada)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1115/2012-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 549

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’, non-registered word mark and trade name ‘TAILORBYRD’ and the company name ‘Tailorbyrd, LLC’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for ‘clothing, shirts’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.