do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State — State aid — Spain (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) — Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — withdrawal of notification — State aid SA.34998 (2013/C) — LIP — Aid for Ford España  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry








C_2014325EN.01000401.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/4





DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE
State aid — Spain
(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — withdrawal of notification
State aid SA.34998 (2013/C) — LIP — Aid for Ford España
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/05
The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 15 May 2013 in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Spain has withdrawn its notification on 17 June 2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7318 — Rosneft / Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, economic concentration, gas, merger control, oil industry








C_2014325EN.01000201.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7318 — Rosneft / Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/03
On 3 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7318. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7377 — Centerbridge/Apcoa)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, merger control, parking area, taxi








C_2014325EN.01000102.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7377 — Centerbridge/Apcoa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/02
On 12 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7377. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, aid to undertakings, building industry, common market, control of State aid, large business, processing industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, storage, transport company, vocational training








C_2014327EN.01000401.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/4





Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 327/02







Aid number


SA.37892 (2013/X)




Member State


Italy




Member State reference number


 




Name of the Region (NUTS)


VENETO
Article 107(3)(c)




Granting authority







REGIONE DEL VENETO




PALAZZO BALBI DORSODURO 3901 30123 VENEZIA




www.regione.veneto.it








Title of the aid measure


RILANCIARE L'IMPRESA VENETA — Progetti di innovazione e di sviluppo — Modalità a sportello — anno 2013




National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)


LR 10/90 «ORDINAMENTO SISTEMA DI FORMAZIONE PROFESSIONALE E ORGANIZZAZIONE DELLE POLITICHE REGIONALI DEL LAVORO. DGR N. 1566/2009 “POLITICHE ATTIVE PER IL CONTRASTO ALLA CRISI OCCUPAZIONALE”. DGR 1675/2011 “PIANO DELLE POLITICHE ATTIVE PER IL CONTRASTO ALLA CRISI VALORIZZAZIONE DEL CAPITALE UMANO — POLITICHE PER L’OCCUPAZIONE E L'OCCUPABILITA”» — DGR 869 DEL 04/06/2013 — DDR N. 998 DEL 14/11/2013 — 7o SPORTELLO




Type of measure


Scheme




Amendment of an existing aid measure


 




Duration


14.11.2013 — 31.12.2013




Economic sector(s) concerned


TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE, MANUFACTURING, CONSTRUCTION




Type of beneficiary


SME, large enterprise




Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme


EUR 0,252 (in millions)




For guarantees


—




Aid Instrument (Art. 5)


Direct grant




Reference to the Commission decision


—




If co-financed by Community funds


DGR 869 DEL 04/06/2013 — DDR N. 998 DEL 14/11/2013 — 7o SPORTELLO — EUR 0,25 (in millions)




Objectives


Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in national currency


SME-bonuses in %




General training (Art. 38(2))


80 %


0 %




Web link to the full text of the aid measure:
http://www.regione.veneto.it/web/formazione/moduli-fse
Rilanciare l'impresa veneta — Progetti innovazione e sviluppo
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7339 — AbbVie/Shire)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2014325EN.01000601.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7339 — AbbVie/Shire)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/07






1.


On 11 September 2014, 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 AbbVie Inc. (‘AbbVie’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Shire Inc. (‘Shire’, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for AbbVie: a research-based biopharmaceutical company, mainly active in the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of proprietary pharmaceutical products, active globally,
—   for Shire: a biopharmaceutical company with focus on rare diseases, neuroscience, gastrointestinal diseases and internal medicine, active globally.










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.










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.7339 — AbbVie/Shire, 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’).
Case T-677/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Biogaran v Commission
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, inter-company agreement, jurisdiction, patent, restriction on competition








C_2014395EN.01005901.xml










10.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/59






Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Biogaran v Commission
(Case T-677/14)
(2014/C 395/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Biogaran (Colombes, France) (represented by: T. Reymond, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Articles 1, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (AT.39612-Perindopril (SERVIER)) so far as they relate to Biogaran;










—


in the alternative, make use of its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce very substantially the fine imposed on Biogaran by Article 7 of that decision;










—


grant Biogaran the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in the action brought by the companies Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited, and draw all appropriate conclusions therefrom in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.






1.


First plea, alleging an error of law in the contested decision, in that it does not show that the applicant participated in any infringement whatever of the competition rules.
The applicant claims that it did not commit in person any anti-competitive acts and could not be held liable for an amicable settlement agreement relating to patents concluded by its parent company, to which it was not party and of the content of which it was unaware.










2.


Second plea, alleging a distortion of the facts, in that the contested decision wrongly concluded that the licence and supply agreement which the applicant had concluded with the company Niche constituted a further incentive for that company to conclude the amicable settlement agreement relating to patents with the applicant’s parent company.










3.


Third plea, alleging, in the alternative, an error of law, in that a fine was imposed on the applicant even though the infringement held to have occurred was novel in nature.
Case C-430/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 September 2014  — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, legal person, natural person, simplification of formalities








C_2014421EN.01002201.xml










24.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 September 2014 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis
(Case C-430/14)
2014/C 421/32
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: Artūrs Stretinskis

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as referring not only to situations in which the parties to the transaction are exclusively natural persons, but also to situations in which there is a family or kinship relationship between a director of one of the parties (a legal person) and the other party to the transaction (a natural person) or a director of that party (in the case of a legal person)?










2.


If the answer is affirmative, must the judicial body hearing the matter carry out an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the case in relation to the actual influence of the natural person concerned over the legal person?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014325EN.01000301.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 September 2014
2014/C 325/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2872




JPY


Japanese yen


140,11




DKK


Danish krone


7,4451




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78830




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1928




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2086




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1895




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,518




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,27




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1930




RON


Romanian leu


4,4093




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8745




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4390




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4159




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9775




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5882




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6341




KRW


South Korean won


1 345,51




ZAR


South African rand


14,2162




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9056




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6273




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 477,89




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1898




PHP


Philippine peso


57,430




RUB


Russian rouble


49,5097




THB


Thai baht


41,588




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0605




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0799




INR


Indian rupee


78,5745






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-674/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — SEA v Commission
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, airport, control of State aid, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_2014388EN.01002302.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/23





Action brought on 19 September 2014 — SEA v Commission
(Case T-674/14)
2014/C 388/29
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti, J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure concerning the setting up of Airport Handling (‘the contested decision’);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: failure to state reasons in the contested decision.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420).














2.


Second plea in law: misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of an error in the assessment of important elements and objective information brought to the Commission’s attention by the applicant.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, the Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling could be regarded as SEA Handling’s economic successor and that the applicant’s financial contribution to Airport Handling constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.














3.


Third plea in law: breach of the fundamental principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, sound administration, proportionality and non-discrimination.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that both the conduct displayed by the departments of the Commission and the contested decision are patently contrary to those principles of EU law. In particular, with regard to the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the Commission should have allayed its own concerns by carrying out a thorough analysis of the information supplied by the applicant before the investigation, instead of adopting the — now contested — decision launching a formal investigation procedure.
Case T-690/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014431EN.01003701.xml










1.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/37





Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)
(Case T-690/14)
(2014/C 431/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark No 1 7 90  674

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2014 in Case R 2100/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 51(2) Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7346 — Montagu Funds / Astorg Funds / Diacine France)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2014325EN.01000101.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7346 — Montagu Funds / Astorg Funds / Diacine France)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/01
On 12 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7346. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-670/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, abuse of power, competition, control of State aid, dairy industry, energy policy, environmental protection








C_2014431EN.01003001.xml










1.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/30





Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission
(Case T-670/14)
(2014/C 431/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Milchindustrie-Verband e.V. (Berlin, Germany), Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (Berlin) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s Communication 2014/C 200/01 of 28 June 2014 on the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, in so far as the dairy processing industry (NACE 10.51) is not mentioned in Annex 3 although it satisfies the criteria set out in Section 3.7.2 of the guidelines;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to a manifest error of assessment in the choice of the reference period






—


In this connection, the applicants submit that, in establishing the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (1), the defendant infringed elementary principles relating to the exercise of discretion by relying on obsolete data in calculating the trade intensity of the industries, although new data was available.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to an insufficient examination of the factual situation






—


The applicants submit that the defendant also misused its powers because it did not, in calculating the trade intensity, identify and take into account all of the products that are actually produced by the dairy industry. That results in a distorted presentation of the competitive position.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements






—


The applicants further submit that, in classifying the economic sectors under Annex 3 or 5 of the guidelines on State aid, the defendant infringes Article 296 TFEU because it does not state anywhere how and on the basis of what data the criterion of trade intensity is calculated and determined. As a result the parties concerned are prevented from effectively exercising their rights.










(1)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).