do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation — Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2014073EN.01000501.xml










12.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/5





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation — Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 73/02
On 5 March 2014, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301) or by post, under reference M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation — Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings, 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 ‘Merger Regulation’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7171 — Varo Energy/Bayernoil Package) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, Germany, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, oil industry, primary product








C_2014073EN.01003501.xml










12.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/35





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7171 — Varo Energy/Bayernoil Package)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 73/08






1.


On 5 March 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Varo Energy (‘Varo’, The Netherlands), ultimately controlled by Vitol Holding BV, Rotterdam, (‘Vitol’, The Netherlands) and by the Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over a set of assets and businesses — the ‘Bayernoil Package’ — from OMV Deutschland GmbH, by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Varo is active in the oil sector, namely in refining, ex-refinery and non-retail sales, storage for heating oil, diesel, gasoline, heavy fuel oil, kerosene, bitumen, recycled oil and lubricants as well as transportation of petroleum products,










—


Vitol is active in the trading of various commodities and financial instruments relating in particular to the oil and gas sector,










—


Carlyle is a global alternative asset manager,










—


The Bayernoil Package is active in the refining and marketing of refined oil products predominantly in southern Germany and Austria.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (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.7171 — Varo Energy/Bayernoil Package, 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 ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15596/2013 — C7-0079/2014 — 2013/0358(NLE))
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Azerbaijan, EU visa policy, agreement (EU), illegal migration, ratification of an agreement, residence permit, return migration








C_2017378EN.01049501.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/495





P7_TA(2014)0215
EU-Azerbaijan Agreement on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15596/2013 — C7-0079/2014 — 2013/0358(NLE))
(Consent)
(2017/C 378/58)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (15596/2013),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15594/2013),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 79(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0079/2014),










—


having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2), and Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0154/2014),












1.


Consents to the conclusion of the Agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (17846/2013 — C7-0078/2014 — 2013/0356(NLE))
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Azerbaijan, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national, ratification of an agreement








C_2017378EN.01049401.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/494





P7_TA(2014)0214
EU-Azerbaijan Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (17846/2013 — C7-0078/2014 — 2013/0356(NLE))
(Consent)
(2017/C 378/57)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (17846/2013),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (15554/2013),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0078/2014),










—


having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2), and Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0155/2014),












1.


Consents to the conclusion of the Agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Case T-348/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL — Earlier national figurative mark SPORTV — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Portugal, pay television, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01001902.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/19






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
(Case T-348/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL - Earlier national figurative mark SPORTV - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2014/C 129/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Globosat Programadora Ltda (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: S. Micallef, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sport TV Portugal, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2012 (case R 2079/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Globosat Programadora Ltda and Sport TV Portugal, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Globosat Programadora Ltda to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
Case T-202/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Al Assad v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Personal ties to members of the regime — Rights of the defence — Fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy)
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, proof, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014129EN.01001801.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Al Assad v Council
(Case T-202/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Personal ties to members of the regime - Rights of the defence - Fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))
(2014/C 129/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part, first, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103); secondly, of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); thirdly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27); and, fourthly, of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Bouchra Al Assad to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Case C-118/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014  — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, airline, indemnification, traveller








C_2014184EN.01001102.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014 — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-118/14)
2014/C 184/15
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peggy Kieck

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?










3.


Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-373/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — FK (*) v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary agents — Extension of contract — Manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Right to a hearing — Severability of the codicil extending the contract)
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract terms, rights of the defence, servant (EU), work contract




C_2014129EN.01002101.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/21






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — FK (*1) v Commission
(Case T-373/13) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary agents - Extension of contract - Manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Right to a hearing - Severability of the codicil extending the contract))
(2014/C 129/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: FK  (*1)(represented by: S. Orlandi, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK
             (*1) v Commission seeking the annulment of that order.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK (*1) v Commission;










2.


Refers the action back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Orders the costs to be reserved.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality

(1)  
            OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Case T-192/12: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — PAN Europe v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 approving the active substance prochloraz — Request for internal review — Refusal — Conditions to be satisfied by an organisation in order to be entitled to make a request for internal review — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2014-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, pesticide, plant health control, withdrawal from the market








C_2014159EN.01002501.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/25





Order of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-192/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Environment - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 approving the active substance prochloraz - Request for internal review - Refusal - Conditions to be satisfied by an organisation in order to be entitled to make a request for internal review - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
2014/C 159/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rutteman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, P. Oliver and P. Ondrůšek, and, subsequently, P. Ondrůšek, J. Tomkin and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 March 2012 rejecting as inadmissible the request made by the applicant for review by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 of 10 November 2011 approving the active substance prochloraz, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 26)

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.