do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7614 — CVC Capital Partners / Royal DSM (Fibre Intermediates and Composite Resins)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015210EN.01001101.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7614 — CVC Capital Partners / Royal DSM (Fibre Intermediates and Composite Resins))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 210/07)






1.


On 17 June 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Royal DSM NV’s fibre intermediates and composite resins business (the Netherlands), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   CVC: is a private equity fund management company active in various industries, including distribution of chemicals,
—   Royal DSM’s fibre intermediates and composite resins business: includes DSM Fibre Intermediates International BV, DSM Composite Resins Holding International BV, DSM Fibre Intermediates China BV and certain affiliated entities, which are companies active in composite resin business and fibre intermediates.










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.7614 — CVC Capital Partners / Royal DSM (Fibre Intermediates and Composite Resins), 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 F-92/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damage, disabled person








C_2015294EN.01008301.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/83






Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-92/15)
(2015/C 294/100)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action seeking annulment of both the decision to reassess the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate and the decision partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decision of 6 October 2014 to the extent that it fixes the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate at only 68,5 %;










—


annul the decision of 18 March 2015 partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2015;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 1 10  000;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Case C-317/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2015 — X, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: account, banking, capital movement, direct investment, financial services, provision of services, securities








C_2015311EN.01002301.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2015 — X, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-317/15)
(2015/C 311/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: X, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the respect for the application to third countries of restrictions, as provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU, extend also to the application of restrictions existing under national rules, such as the extended recovery period at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which rules can also be applied in situations that have nothing to do with direct investment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets?










2.


Does the respect for the application of restrictions relating to the movement of capital involving the provision of financial services, as provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU, concern also restrictions that, like the extended recovery period at issue in the case in the main proceedings, are not directed at the provider of the services and do not determine either the conditions or the mechanisms of the provision of services?










3.


Does a situation such as that in the case in the main proceedings, in which a resident of a Member State has opened a (securities) account with a banking institution outside the European Union, also come within the definition of ‘the movement of capital ... involving … the provision of financial services’ within the meaning of Article 64(1) TFEU, and does it matter in this connection whether (and if so, to what extent) that banking institution carries out activities for the benefit of the account holder?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015210EN.01000401.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 June 2015
(2015/C 210/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1206




JPY


Japanese yen


138,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4598




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71260




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2276




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0507




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7595




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,235




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,78




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1727




RON


Romanian leu


4,4555




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9845




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4477




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3878




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6866




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6211




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5032




KRW


South Korean won


1 245,32




ZAR


South African rand


13,5625




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9580




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5887




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 918,16




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2107




PHP


Philippine peso


50,549




RUB


Russian rouble


61,2318




THB


Thai baht


37,830




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4689




MXN


Mexican peso


17,3559




INR


Indian rupee


71,2500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7353 — Airbus/Safran/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015210EN.01000101.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7353 — Airbus/Safran/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 210/01)
On 26 November 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 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 32014M7353. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-318/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, award of contract, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, works contract








C_2015311EN.01002401.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano
(Case C-318/15)
(2015/C 311/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

Defendant: Comune di Fossano

Question referred

Must Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality be interpreted as precluding legislative provisions such as those currently in force in Italy, namely Articles 122(9) and 253(20-bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, concerning the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders in procedures for the award of works contracts with a value below the threshold which may be of cross-border interest?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7627 — Centerbridge/BFF) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015210EN.01000102.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7627 — Centerbridge/BFF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 210/02)
On 18 June 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 32015M7627. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-316/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, payment, right of establishment, single market, trade licence








C_2015311EN.01002201.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council
(Case C-316/15)
(2015/C 311/27)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.

Defendant: Westminster City Council

Questions referred

Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:






(1)


does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?










(2)


does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:






(a)


evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss,










(b)


the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or










(c)


any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?










(1)  OJ L 376, p. 36
Council Decision of 26 June 2015 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI Regulation) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, budgetary expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), general budget (EU)








C_2015214EN.01000201.xml










30.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 214/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 26 June 2015
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI Regulation) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013
(2015/C 214/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:














HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 was adopted on 26 June 2015.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 26 June 2015.


For the Council


The President

E. RINKĒVIČS




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2015, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2015210EN.01000301.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/3





Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2015/C 210/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that are presently designated in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities presently designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 26 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 July 2015, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.
Case T-93/15: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2015 — Navitar v OHIM — Elukuva (NaviTar)
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01006202.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/62





Order of the General Court of 26 June 2015 — Navitar v OHIM — Elukuva (NaviTar)
(Case T-93/15) (1)

(2015/C 311/72)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case C-314/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: estuary, freshwater, industrial pollution, pollution control measures, urban area, wastewater, water pollutant, water pollution, water treatment








C_2015294EN.01003901.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/39






Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-314/15)
(2015/C 294/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


a declaration that in not having assured the secondary treatment or equivalent of urban waste water from 15 agglomerations having a population equivalent between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1).










—


that the French Republic should pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the Commission complains that France has failed to implement correctly, in 15 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.
Pursuant to Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, agglomerations where the population equivalent (p.e.) is between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, must be equipped with collecting systems and waste water undergo a secondary treatment or the equivalent by 31 December 2005 at the latest.


(1)  
            OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7598 — Dr. Oetker/Coppenrath & Wiese) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, book trade, catering industry, economic concentration, financial services, hotel industry, logistics, merger control, processed food product, transport company








C_2015210EN.01000201.xml










26.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7598 — Dr. Oetker/Coppenrath & Wiese)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 210/03)
On 17 June 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 32015M7598. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.