do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7586 — Flextronics/Certain Assets Belonging to Alcatel-Lucent Italia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2015168EN.01001501.xml










22.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7586 — Flextronics/Certain Assets Belonging to Alcatel-Lucent Italia)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 168/05)






1.


On 13 May 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Flextronics Manufacturing Srl (Italy) belonging to Flextronics International Ltd (‘Flextronics’, Singapore) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of certain manufacturing assets located in Italy from Alcatel-Lucent Italia SpA (‘Alcatel-Lucent Italia’, Italy) belonging to Alcatel-Lucent (France), by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Flextronics is a global provider of electronics manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers. Its services include product design, manufacturing, logistics and after-sales services,










—


The manufacturing assets of Alcatel-Lucent Italia concerned by the proposed concentration are located in Trieste, Italy. They are used to manufacture telecommunications systems equipment and provide related products and support services.














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 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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7586 — Flextronics/Certain Assets Belonging to Alcatel-Lucent Italia, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7563 — CommScope/TE BNS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications equipment, transmission network








C_2015168EN.01001601.xml










22.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7563 — CommScope/TE BNS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 168/06)






1.


On 13 May 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CommScope, Inc. (‘CommScope’, United States of America) part of the Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, United States of America), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the Telecom, Enterprise and Wireless businesses (the Broadband Network Solutions business unit, ‘BNS’) of TE Connectivity Ltd (‘TE’, Switzerland) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carlyle: multi-product global alternative asset management firm,
—   for CommScope: a global network infrastructure and connectivity provider offering broadband, enterprise, and wireless solutions, and
—   for BNS: the Telecom, Enterprise and Wireless businesses of TE. The BNS business designs, manufactures, sells, installs and distributes fibre, copper and wireless infrastructure components, cabling and systems for telecommunications and enterprise customers.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7563 — CommScope/TE BNS, 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-295/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Autoneum Germany v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002301.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/23





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Autoneum Germany v Commission
(Case T-295/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 245/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Autoneum Germany GmbH (Roßdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme, M. Ringel and T. Wielsch lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.










3.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










4.


Autoneum Germany GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.










5.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-305/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Vestolit v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002702.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/27





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Vestolit v Commission
(Case T-305/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 245/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Vestolit GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-298/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002501.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/25





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission
(Case T-298/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 245/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-301/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, countertrade, electricity supply, energy consumption, renewable energy, terms for aid








C_2015245EN.01002701.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/27





Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission
(Case T-301/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 245/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-268/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lease, parking area, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01004101.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/41





Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
(Case T-268/15)
(2015/C 245/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 567 021

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2063/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-261/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Spirig Pharma v OHIM (Daylong)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01003902.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/39





Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Spirig Pharma v OHIM (Daylong)
(Case T-261/15)
(2015/C 245/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Spirig Pharma (Egerkingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Daylong’ — Application for registration No 12 537 627

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2015 in Case R 2455/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the fourth Board of Appeal of the Office.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 75 of the same regulation;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-240/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, financial autonomy, public expenditure, public finance, regulation of telecommunications, self-financing








C_2015302EN.01001301.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others
(Case C-240/15)
(2015/C 302/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Respondents: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministry of Economy and Finance

Question referred

Do the impartiality, financial autonomy and organisational independence which national regulatory authorities must be granted under Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) and the substantial self-financing of such authorities referred to in Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) preclude national legislation (such as that relevant to the present proceedings) which additionally makes such authorities subject, in general, to legislation on public finance and, in particular, to specific provisions relating to containing and streamlining expenditure incurred by public administrative authorities?


(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

(2)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).
Case C-238/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, education policy, financial aid, student, terms for aid








C_2015254EN.01000901.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
(Case C-238/15)
(2015/C 254/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Question referred

Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher education — which was added by the Law of 19 July 2013 and which does not take into account any other connecting factor —, namely that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a continuous period of at least five years at the time the application for financial aid is made, justified by the considerations relating to education policy and budgetary policy put forward by the Luxembourg State, and appropriate and proportionate in each case in relation to the objective pursued, namely of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree while seeking to ensure that those persons, having benefited from the possibility offered by the system of aid concerned in order to finance their studies — undertaken as the case may be abroad — will return to Luxembourg in order to apply their knowledge for the benefit of the economic development of that Member State?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7591 — 3i Group/Oiltanking GmbH/Oiltanking Ghent/Oiltanking Terneuzen) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, storage








C_2015168EN.01000101.xml










22.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7591 — 3i Group/Oiltanking GmbH/Oiltanking Ghent/Oiltanking Terneuzen)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 168/01)
On 13 May 2015, 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 32015M7591. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.