do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7099 — ARX/Darby/Gramex/GFI) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Türkiye, beverage industry, bottling, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_2013342EN.01001101.xml










22.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7099 — ARX/Darby/Gramex/GFI)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 342/09






1.


On 18 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 the undertakings ARX CEE III LP (‘ARX’, Jersey) and Darby Converging Europe Fund III (SCS) SICAR (‘Darby’, Luxembourg), the latter belonging to Franklin Resources Inc. (‘Franklin Templeton Group’, United States), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertakings Gramex 2000 Kereskedelmi Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (‘Gramex’, Hungary) and GF Investment Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (‘GFI’, Hungary) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ARX: private equity fund active in Central and Eastern Europe,










—


for Darby: private equity fund focusing on mezzanine investments active in Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey,










—


for Gramex: manufacture and distribution of non-alcoholic beverages, including carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks,










—


for GFI: bottling services for private label manufacturers and distributors, including non-alcoholic beverages.














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.7099 — ARX/Darby/Gramex/GFI, 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 T-608/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — TUI (easyAir-tours)
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2014024EN.01003301.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/33





Action brought on 22 November 2013 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — TUI (easyAir-tours)
(Case T-608/13)
2014/C 24/60
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TUI AG (Hannover, Germany)

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 5 September 2013 given in Case R 1029/2012-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘easyAir-tours’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 220 849

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registrations designating the European Union, Community trade mark registration and national trade mark registration of a figurative mark containing inter alia the verbal element ‘airtours’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
Case T-609/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — BlackRock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01003302.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/33





Action brought on 22 November 2013 — BlackRock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)
(Case T-609/13)
2014/C 24/61
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BlackRock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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 Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 572/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 748

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013342EN.01000201.xml










22.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 November 2013
2013/C 342/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3472




JPY


Japanese yen


135,83




DKK


Danish krone


7,4589




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83500




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9353




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2318




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2065




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,197




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,46




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7027




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1923




RON


Romanian leu


4,4518




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7200




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4536




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4109




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4434




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6393




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6818




KRW


South Korean won


1 431,41




ZAR


South African rand


13,6700




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2082




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6503




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 765,61




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3178




PHP


Philippine peso


58,947




RUB


Russian rouble


44,3825




THB


Thai baht


42,858




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1130




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6655




INR


Indian rupee


84,7930






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-169/13: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, arrangement of working time, drivers, road transport, self-employed person








C_2014102EN.01002903.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/29





Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-169/13) (1)

2014/C 102/43
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7073 — KKR/Arle Capital/Hilding Anders) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Europe, economic concentration, furniture industry, investment company, merger control, textile industry








C_2013342EN.01001001.xml










22.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7073 — KKR/Arle Capital/Hilding Anders)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 342/08






1.


On 15 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 the undertakings KKR & Co. LP (‘KKR’, USA) and Arle Capital Partners Limited (‘Arle Capital’, UK) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Hilding Anders Midco AB (‘Hilding Anders’, Sweden), previously solely controlled by Arle Capital, by other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: provision of a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,










—


for Arle Capital: a private equity firm that manages a diversified portfolio of investments headquartered in Europe,










—


for Hilding Anders: development, manufacture and marketing of beds, mattresses and related products.














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.7073 — KKR/Arle Capital/Hilding Anders, 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-188/13: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovenia, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, rail transport








C_2014102EN.01003001.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/30





Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-188/13) (1)

2014/C 102/45
Language of the case: Slovene
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014031EN.01001401.xml










1.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/14





Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
(Case T-621/13)
2014/C 31/25
Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4;










—


order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL

Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alva Management GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.
Call addressed to relevant organisations such as research agencies, research institutions, universities, standardisation organisations, civil society organisations or enterprises for the establishment of a database of prospective independent experts to assist Commission services with tasks in connection with Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, Framework Programme for Research and Development, civil society, database, invitation to tender, natural person, research body, self-employed person, standardisation, type of business, university








C_2013342EN.01000401.xml










22.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/4





Call addressed to relevant organisations such as research agencies, research institutions, universities, standardisation organisations, civil society organisations or enterprises for the establishment of a database of prospective independent experts to assist Commission services with tasks in connection with Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
2013/C 342/04
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call addressed to relevant organisations such as research agencies, research institutions, universities, standardisation organisations, civil society organisations or enterprises for the establishment of a database of prospective independent experts to assist Commission services with tasks in connection with Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (1) and its specific programme (Horizon 2020 framework programme), and the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (the ‘Euratom programme’) (collectively ‘Horizon 2020’) and the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) (2).
Information on the modalities and how to submit lists of proposed prospective independent experts for this call is available through the European Commission Participant Portal website (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/experts).


(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal. This call is published before the expected adoption and entry into force of the Horizon 2020 framework programme. The call will, therefore, only take full effect after the Horizon 2020 framework programme has entered into force. It may be verified that the provisions concerning independent experts have not undergone any substantial change. The publication of the call, anticipating the adoption of the Horizon 2020 framework programme, shall not give rise to any claim against the Commission.

(2)  Council Decision 2008/376/EC of 29 April 2008 on the adoption of the Research Fund of the RFCS and on the multiannual technical guidelines for this programme, OJ L 130, 20.5.2008, p. 7.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7066 — CNODC/Novatek/Total EPY/Yamal LNG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, European Economic Area, Russia, economic concentration, gas, merger control, petroleum








C_2013342EN.01000801.xml










22.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7066 — CNODC/Novatek/Total EPY/Yamal LNG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 342/06






1.


On 14 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 the China National Oil & Gas Development Corporation (‘CNODC’, China), Total E&P Yamal (‘Total EPY’, France) and OJSC Novatek (‘Novatek’, Russia) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of OAO Yamal LNG (‘Yamal LNG’, Russia) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CNODC: subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation (‘CNPC’, China), which is active, mainly in China, but to a lesser extent also in the EEA, in a broad range of petroleum and gas related activities,










—


for Total EPY: active, globally, in the fields of natural gas and oil production, refining and marketing of oil products, petrochemicals and specialty chemicals,










—


for Novatek: active in the fields of exploration, production, processing and marketing of natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons in Russia,










—


for Yamal LNG: active in the development and (future) exploration of hydrocarbon raw materials at the South Tambeyskoye gas and condensate field on the Yamal peninsula in Russia.














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.7066 — CNODC/Novatek/Total EPY/Yamal LNG, 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’).
Questions for the paper fortune teller game.
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: agricultural policy, public awareness campaign, young person

What do vegetables contain?
Vitamins, minerals and fibre.

natural sugar found in fruit?
What's the name of the 

Fructose

the mother of a piglet?
What do you call 
A sow. The male is called a boar.

It depends on the breed.
Between 500 and 900 kg. 
Guess the average weight
of an adult cow?

When is fruit harvested?
it depends on the fruit.
All year round, 

 like tomatoes, corn and…cocoa.
 originally come from?
From South America,
Where did the potato

What does this logo stand for?
It's the organic farming logo.

 order to have enough sugar
 the cultivation of sugarbeet in
 sugar in Europe, he encouraged
 at a good price.
As there was a shortage of cane
 the cultivation of sugarbeet?
Do you know who encouraged
Napoleon Bonaparte!

EN

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture

Rural Development
Agriculture and  
European Commission  

K
F
-
0
3
-
1
3
-
0
7
0
-
E
N
-
J
Case C-603/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-462/07: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA v European Commission
Date: 2013-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, infringement of EU law, price agreement, proof, rights of the defence








C_2014024EN.01001202.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/12





Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-462/07: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA v European Commission
(Case C-603/13 P)
2014/C 24/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA (represented by: M. Slotboom, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the Judgment in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, and/or to annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision in so far as it relates to the applicants, and/or to set aside Article 2 of the Decision to the extent a fine has been imposed on the applicants or to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the Decision,










—


set aside the Judgment and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the Court of Justice;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:






 


The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence, failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding assessment of evidence and disregarded the general principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by determining that the Commission cannot be regarded as having found unlawfully that the parties participated in price coordination ‘until 2002’. Moreover, the General Court failed to give sufficient grounds for that determination.










 


The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence and failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence, including infringement of the principle of ‘ne ultra petita’, infringement of the right to a fair trial and the right of defence (the right to be heard) by finding that the parties can be held liable in respect of the monitoring system and the compensation mechanism and that therefore there is no need to vary the starting amount of the fine.










 


The General Court infringed the parties’ fundamental right to have their case heard within a reasonable time.