do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-167/14: Action brought on 13 March 2014  — Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, aid system, dissemination of information, judicial inquiry, restriction on competition, single market








C_2014223EN.01001301.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/13





Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission
(Case T-167/14)
2014/C 223/17
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2013 not to raise objections to Denmark’s production and innovation aid for written media (SA.36366);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a competitor of the recipients of the aid, submits that the Commission ought to have found that there was doubt as to the compatibility of the reported measure with the internal market and that the Commission therefore ought to have adopted a decision to open the formal investigation procedure: see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the procedural regulation. (1) In failing to do so, the Commission has disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.
In support of the argument that there was reasonable doubt as to the scheme’s compatibility with the internal market, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:






—


the Commission failed entirely to examine whether the scheme was suitable for ensuring the expansion of news content provided to the Danish people, thereby supporting the democratic process;










—


the contested decision in any event lacks a sufficient statement of reasons with regard to suitability; and










—


the Commission failed to examine the competition-distorting effects of the scheme in the relationship between free newspapers and newspapers sold for money.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014074EN.01000201.xml










13.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 March 2014
2014/C 74/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3887




JPY


Japanese yen


142,68




DKK


Danish krone


7,4628




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83590




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8619




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2159




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2870




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,353




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,35




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2272




RON


Romanian leu


4,5121




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1113




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5507




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5465




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,7844




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6416




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7603




KRW


South Korean won


1 487,02




ZAR


South African rand


15,1248




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5344




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6565




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 927,57




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5685




PHP


Philippine peso


61,997




RUB


Russian rouble


50,6994




THB


Thai baht


45,049




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2785




MXN


Mexican peso


18,4385




INR


Indian rupee


85,0162






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-38/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Clause 4  — Concept of ‘employment conditions’   — Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract  — Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European social policy, equal treatment, framework agreement, temporary employment, work contract, working conditions








C_2014135EN.01001301.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy
(Case C-38/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract - Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration))
(2014/C 135/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and of clauses 1 and 4 of the annex to that directive — Provisions of national law providing for less favourable periods of notice in fixed-term contracts than in open-ended contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the termination of fixed-term contracts of more than six months, a fixed notice period of two weeks may be applied regardless of the length of service of the worker concerned, whereas the length of the notice period for contracts of indefinite duration is fixed in accordance with the length of service of the worker concerned and may vary from two weeks to three months, where those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.


(1)  
            OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case C-633/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, in the presence of: P4 Sp. z o.o., Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet access provider, price control, regulation of telecommunications, telephone, telephone charges








C_2014202EN.01001601.xml










30.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/16





Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, in the presence of: P4 Sp. z o.o., Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji
(Case C-633/13) (1)

2014/C 202/19
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 71, 8. 3. 2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7115 — Kuraray/GLSV Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2014074EN.01000601.xml










13.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7115 — Kuraray/GLSV Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 74/05






1.


On 6 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 Kuraray Co., Ltd. (‘Kuraray’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the Glass Laminating Solutions/Vinyls Business (‘The Target Business’) of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (‘DuPont’, USA), by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Kuraray: manufacturer of specialty chemicals, fibres and other materials, including functional resins and film, amongst which PVB film used as an interlayer in safety glass,










—


for Target Business: Glass Laminating Solutions/Vinyls Business of DuPont's Performance Materials business unit manufacturing and supplying amongst others PVB film and other glass interlayer products sold under the trademark Sentryglas.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the 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.7115 — Kuraray/GLSV Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).