do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7294 — Carlyle / Haier Group / Haier Biomedical and Laboratory Product) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, household electrical appliance, medical device, merger control








C_2014185EN.01004601.xml










17.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/46





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7294 — Carlyle / Haier Group / Haier Biomedical and Laboratory Product)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 185/11)






1.


On 6 June 2014 the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration according to Article 4 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Carlyle Group L.P. (‘Carlyle’, USA) and Haier Group Corporation (‘Haier Group’, China) intend to acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Haier Biomedical and Laboratory Products Co., Ltd (‘HBML’, China), currently solely controlled by the Haier Group.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carlyle: global alternative asset manager,
—   for Haier Group: multinational manufacturer and supplier of consumer electronics and home appliances,
—   for HBML: supplier of general laboratory equipment, in particular medical freezers, medical fridges/deep freezers and biomedical safety hoods.










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 the 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7294 — Carlyle / Haier Group / Haier Biomedical and Laboratory Product, 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.
Case T-449/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electric cable, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2014282EN.01004901.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/49





Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
(Case T-449/14)
2014/C 282/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Nexans France (Clichy, France); and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);










—


Annul part of the contested decision in so far as it found that Nexans France participated in an infringement before 22 February 2001;










—


Reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants by an amount that corresponds to a shorter duration and a reduced gravity factor; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the duration of the infringement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it failed to take account of the alleged infringement’s lack of implementation and lack of effects on customers, failed to give adequate reasons and breached the principle of equal treatment.
Case T-450/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, infringement of EU law, inter-company agreement, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2014303EN.01004001.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/40





Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission
(Case T-450/14)
2014/C 303/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan); and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by: M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for a single complex continuous infringement including the European and the A/R configuration or, in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 1(8)(a)-(c) of the decision insofar as it holds the applicants liable for an infringement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008;










—


in the further alternative, annul Article 2(m) of the Commission decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in view of the applicants’ substantially limited involvement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008; and










—


annul the decision in its entirety as it relies to a decisive extent on evidence illegally seized at the premises of Nexans SA and Nexans France;










—


ordering the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the contested decision failed to prove to the required legal standard the applicants’ involvement over the entire duration of the infringement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on the applicants, as the fine imposed does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and the applicants’ substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement and rights of defence as the contested decision relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014185EN.01000101.xml










17.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 June 2014
(2014/C 185/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3532




JPY


Japanese yen


137,81




DKK


Danish krone


7,4571




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79740




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0005




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2176




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1190




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,438




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,51




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1425




RON


Romanian leu


4,3963




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8979




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4426




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4724




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4893




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5611




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6927




KRW


South Korean won


1 380,77




ZAR


South African rand


14,5266




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4248




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5805




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 999,04




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3650




PHP


Philippine peso


59,436




RUB


Russian rouble


46,9129




THB


Thai baht


43,781




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0187




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6505




INR


Indian rupee


81,4220






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-452/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product








C_2014253EN.01006201.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/62





Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
(Case T-452/14)
2014/C 253/84
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and










—


order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the marketing authorisation holder of the orphan medicinal product Orphacol, which is authorised for the treatment of two very rare and serious genetic liver disorders and whose active ingredient is cholic acid. Orphacol benefits as of 16 September 2013 from a 10-year period of market exclusivity in respect of these two indications in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 141/2000 (1).
By the contested decision dated 4 April 2014, the Commission granted a marketing authorisation for another orphan medicinal product (Cholic Acid FGK) with cholic acid as the active ingredient. Although Cholic Acid FGK was authorised for three other therapeutic indications than those for which Orphacol was authorised, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report for Cholic Acid FGK, which according to the applicant form an integral part of the contested decision, contained extensive references to the efficacy as well as references to the safety of Cholic Acid FGK in the therapeutic indications for which Orphacol was authorised.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, as the Commission has, by granting a marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK on the terms set out in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report, circumvented the applicant’s market exclusivity, since the terms upon which the marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK was granted imply, in substance, that Cholic Acid FGK is also authorised for the two therapeutic indications for which Orphacol is authorised.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).