do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7007 — RZB/RBSPK/RWBB)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, bank, economic concentration, improvement of housing, loan, merger control








C_2014026EN.01000202.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7007 — RZB/RBSPK/RWBB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 26/04
On 4 November 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 32013M7007. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014026EN.01000501.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 January 2014
2014/C 26/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3649




JPY


Japanese yen


140,61




DKK


Danish krone


7,4616




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82285




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8158




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2278




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4050




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,507




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,83




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1913




RON


Romanian leu


4,5340




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0980




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5515




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5210




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5967




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6514




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7398




KRW


South Korean won


1 471,93




ZAR


South African rand


15,1169




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2589




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6455




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 573,22




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5517




PHP


Philippine peso


61,726




RUB


Russian rouble


47,3240




THB


Thai baht


44,907




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2934




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1409




INR


Indian rupee


85,3270






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China ( OJ L 325, 5.12.2013 )
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal








L_2014026EN.01004601.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 26/46







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 325 of 5 December 2013
)

On page 53, Article 1(1), end of first paragraph:
for:

               ‘… and 8541 40 29 0239) and originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, unless they are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT.’,
read:

               ‘… and 8541 40 90 39) and originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, unless they are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7133 — Investindustrial/KKR/Resort Holdings)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Southern Europe, economic concentration, investment company, leisure park, merger control, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2014026EN.01000102.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7133 — Investindustrial/KKR/Resort Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 26/02
On 22 January 2014, 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 32014M7133. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-470/12: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2014  — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of that application — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01003302.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/33





Order of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
(Case T-470/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to adjudicate))
2014/C 112/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, San Marino)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1419/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grand Hotel Primavera SA and Sothys Auriac.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case F-7/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), work contract








C_2014085EN.01002802.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/28





Action brought on 29 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-7/14)
2014/C 85/49
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision to reduce to two years instead of three the extension period of the temporary staff contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 July 2013 reducing from three to two years the extension period of the temporary staff contract of the applicant granted by decision of 23 November 2011;










—


Fix at EUR 45 000, together with default interest, the amount of compensation due to the applicant in the event that the Commission is, lawfully, unable to reinstate the applicant for the period of one year;










—


Order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.
Case T-64/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, international sanctions, legal basis, maritime transport, rights of the defence








C_2014093EN.01002801.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/28





Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
(Case T-64/14)
2014/C 93/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC (Queen's Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);










—


Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP (1) of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 (2) of 10 October 2013 (‘the October Measures’);










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.






(1)  Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46)

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1)
Case C-397/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Simone Gbagbo v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Appeal — Time-limit — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, international sanctions, terrorism








C_2014175EN.01001901.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/19





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Simone Gbagbo v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire
(Case C-397/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Time-limit - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility))
2014/C 175/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Simone Gbagbo (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2013, in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council in which the General Court dismissed the action seeking an annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the appellant — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Simone Gbagbo is ordered to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.09.2013.
Case T-158/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA (Public service contracts — Community tender procedure — External service provision for software applications — Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract — Award criteria — Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents — Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage — Transparency)
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract, software








C_2014071EN.01001801.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/18






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA
(Case T-158/12) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tender procedure - External service provision for software applications - Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract - Award criteria - Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents - Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage - Transparency)
(2014/C 71/30)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece); and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by H. G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, and subsequently by H. G. Kamann et A. Dritsa, lawyers)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of European Medicines Agency decision EMA/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012 to classify the applicants’ tender in second place for signing a framework-contract, following the call for tender EMA/2011/17/ICT on the external service provision for software applications, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai and European Dynamics UK Ltd shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6924 — Refresco Group/Pride Foods)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_2014026EN.01000201.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6924 — Refresco Group/Pride Foods)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 26/03
On 4 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 32013M6924. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-47/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark goldstück — Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002001.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/20






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)
(Case T-47/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark goldstück - Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2014/C 71/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 2589/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH and Ms Christin Vieweg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7131 — Compal Electronics/Toshiba Television Central Europe)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic equipment, merger control








C_2014026EN.01000101.xml










29.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7131 — Compal Electronics/Toshiba Television Central Europe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 26/01
On 22 January 2014, 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 32014M7131. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.