do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-684/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, control of restrictive practices, patent, pharmaceutical industry, restriction on competition, settlement of disputes








C_2014431EN.01003401.xml










1.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/34





Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission
(Case T-684/14)
(2014/C 431/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d. (Novo Mesto, Slovenia) (represented by: T. Ilešič and M. Kocmut, lawyers).

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier), served on the applicant on 11 July 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant, in particular Articles 4, 7(4)(a), 8 and 9;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and










—


order such other measures as justice may require.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to properly analyse the legal, factual and economic context of the applicant's situation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly concluded that the applicant and Servier were actual or potential competitors under Article 101 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission's wrong conclusion that the patent settlement concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU rests on erroneous factual and legal analysis as well as on a wrongful application of the established principles on restrictions by object.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right of defence by inconsistently examining the Assignment and Licence Agreement and erred in concluding that the Assignment and Licence Agreement amounts to a restriction of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the agreements concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by effect under Article 101(1) TFEU.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to accurately assess the arguments raised by the applicant under Article 101(3) TFEU.
Case T-688/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — Airport Handling v Commission
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, airport, control of State aid, infringement of EU law








C_2014388EN.01002601.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/26





Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Airport Handling v Commission
(Case T-688/14)
2014/C 388/32
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Airport Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: R. Cafari Panico and F. Scarpellini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in its entirety, Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure in Case SA.21420 (2014/NN) concerning the setting up of the company Airport Handling SpA (‘the contested decision’);










—


in the alternative, in the unlikely event that the Court decides that only some of the complaints raised in the present action should be upheld, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns those complaints;










—


in any event, order the 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, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.






—


The applicant argues that the contested decision is vitiated by the fact that the European Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling SpA was SEA Handling’s successor on the basis of a presumed economic connection between the two companies and, on the strength of that incorrect assumption, adopted the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure.














2.


Second plea in law, also alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision was wrong in so far as the Commission held that the capitalisation of Airport Handling SpA could represent State aid incompatible with the market and, on the basis of that incorrect assumption, initiated a formal investigation procedure.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration.






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, failed to fulfil its obligation to carry out an impartial and thorough examination of the information in its possession, and failed to take account of the need to weigh up the interests involved.
Case F-69/14: Action brought on 19 July 2014  — ZZ v European Securities and Markets Authority
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EU office or agency, activity report








C_2014380EN.01002701.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/27





Action brought on 19 July 2014 — ZZ v European Securities and Markets Authority
(Case F-69/14)
2014/C 380/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the appraisal report drawn up in respect of 2013.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the challenged appraisal report;










—


order the European Securities and Markets Authority to pay the costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7402 — Klesch Refining / Milford Haven refinery assets) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, United Kingdom, economic concentration, merger control, oil refining








C_2014325EN.01000501.xml










19.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7402 — Klesch Refining / Milford Haven refinery assets)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 325/06






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 Klesch Refining Limited (‘Klesch Refining’, United Kingdom), belonging to the Klesch Group, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Milford Haven refinery and its ancillary assets (‘Milford Haven’, United Kingdom), by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Klesch Refining: belongs to the Klesch Group, which is active in the production and trading of chemicals, metals and oil. The Klesch Group owns and operates the Heide Refinery (Germany), which is active in the refining of crude oil into refined products such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel, LPG and propylene,
—   for Milford Haven: active in the refining of crude oil into refined products such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel, LPG and propylene.










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 this 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.7402 — Klesch Refining / Milford Haven refinery assets, 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.