do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-296/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, competition policy, plant health legislation, plant health product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality








C_2015254EN.01001901.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/19





Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission
(Case T-296/15)
(2015/C 254/22)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


disapply Regulation 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in particular Article 24 thereof and point 4 of Annex II;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015, with respect to the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution contained in the Annex, and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





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 that the Implementing Regulation has been adopted on an unlawful basis, as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market infringes EU law because:






—


it breaches the precautionary principle by providing for a mechanism for the substitution of active substances on the basis of hypothetical risks that are not objectively substantiated;










—


by adversely affecting authorised substances, it breaches the principle of proportionality in that it goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of protection;










—


it distorts competition in the internal market by promoting the substitution of substances in the manner in which it does; and










—


it infringes the principle that reasons must be stated, so far as concerns the criterion of ‘a significant proportion of non-active isomers’ included in Annex II, point 4, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the duty to state reasons by failing to justify the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution on the basis of scientific and technical criteria, and it infringes the principle of non-discrimination in relation to Metalaxyl-M.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the principle of proportionality in relation to the objective of reducing risks to health and the environment promoted by the European Union.
Case C-390/14: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Criminal proceedings against Masoud Mehrabipari
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, criminal proceedings, illegal migration, national implementing measure, passport, penalty








C_2015320EN.01002504.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/25





Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Criminal proceedings against Masoud Mehrabipari
(Case C-390/14) (1)

(2015/C 320/37)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Case T-293/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Banimmo v Commission
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, public contract, right to justice, transparency in decision-making








C_2015236EN.01004901.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/49





Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Banimmo v Commission
(Case T-293/15)
(2015/C 236/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Banimmo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


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 of the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the applicant to sound administration and effective legal protection, in so far as, despite repeated requests from the applicant, the Commission has not provided it with the reasons for refusing its offer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a modification during the procedure of some essential factors of the property prospecting notice concerned, in infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency, since the Commission led negotiations with the various tenderers in an unforeseen manner with a lack of transparency, by, in particular, not formally announcing the stages of the procedure and the periods to submit tenders.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7647 — Bridgepoint/Nordic Cinema Group Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cinema, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015186EN.01000701.xml










5.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7647 — Bridgepoint/Nordic Cinema Group Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 186/06)






1.


On 28 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 Bridgepoint Advisers Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Nordic Cinema Group Holding AB (‘Nordic Cinema Group’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bridgepoint: private equity group;
—   for Nordic Cinema Group: cinema operator active in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden.










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.7647 — Bridgepoint/Nordic Cinema Group Holding, 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.