do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7448 — Telenor/Schibsted/Naspers Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, economic concentration, merger control, newspaper, telecommunications industry








C_2014427EN.01001001.xml










28.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7448 — Telenor/Schibsted/Naspers Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 427/11)






1.


On 19 November 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which SnT Classifieds ANS (‘SnT’), a joint venture between Schibsted ASA (‘Schibsted’, Norway) and Telenor ASA (‘Telenor’, Norway) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the online classifieds businesses in Bangladesh and Chile of Naspers Limited (‘Naspers’, South Africa), by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Telenor: mobile and fixed telecommunications services;
—   for Schibsted: print online media services and online classified services;
—   for SnT: online classified services;
—   for Naspers: internet services, including e-commerce services, such as online retail, online marketplaces, online comparison shopping, payments and other online services; pay television services and print media.










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.7448 — Telenor/Schibsted/Naspers Business, 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.
Cancellation notice
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: European Medicines Agency
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, competition (EU)








CA2014427EN.01000101.xml










28.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 427/1





Cancellation notice
(2014/C 427 A/01)
 
The European Medicines Agency has decided to cancel the following selection procedure:






—


EMA/AD/369: Programme Manager, Head of Veterinary Medicines Division Support, Veterinary Medicines Division (AD 5).
Case T-788/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, domestic market, electricity supply, equal treatment, price of energy








C_2015065EN.01003801.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/38





Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission
(Case T-788/14)
(2015/C 065/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MPF Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: D. Piccinin and E. Whiteford, Barristers, and E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission unlawfully deprived MPF of its right to participate in the formal investigation procedure by failing to open a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, notwithstanding that the capacity market gives rise to doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The applicant submits that:






—


the discriminatory availability of long contract durations cannot be justified by reference to the legitimate objective of procuring the necessary amount of generation capacity;










—


the Commission failed adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory availability of long contract durations on the efficiency of the capacity market and on the owners of existing plants;










—


the Commission failed adequately to investigate the United Kingdom Government’s purported justification for discriminatory contract durations, namely that independent generators that rely on project finance require long term contracts;










—


the Commission failed to justify or adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory price-taker/price-maker distinction.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7155 — SSAB/Rautaruukki)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2014427EN.01000202.xml










28.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7155 — SSAB/Rautaruukki)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 427/03)
On 14 July 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32014M7155. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-550/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2014  — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, alloy, gold, semi-manufactured goods, toxic substance








C_2015056EN.01000901.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2014 — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-550/14)
(2015/C 056/11)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Envirotec Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Are bars consisting of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects covered by the terms ‘gold material or semi-manufactured products’ within the meaning of Article 198(2) of the VAT Directive (1)?
It can be taken as established that the bars consist of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects and they can contain, in addition to gold, also organic materials, such as teeth, rubber, PVC and metals/materials such as copper, tin, nickel, amalgam, the remains of batteries containing mercury and lead, and various toxic substances, etc. There is thus no question of it being a gold-bearing product which is being processed directly into a finished product. On the other hand, the bar is a processed product (a fusion), which — as a form of intermediate stage — is created with a view to extracting the gold content. The bars have a high gold content, on average between 500 and 600 thousandths, and thus substantially over 325 thousandths gold. After extraction the gold content is to be used to manufacture (gold/gold-bearing) products.
In answering the question, it can also be taken as established that the bars cannot directly form part of other products, since first the bars must be subjected to processing in which the metals are separated and the non-metals and hazardous substances etc., are melted away/excreted.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).