do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7637 — Liberty Global/BASE Belgium) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet access provider, cable distribution, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2015281EN.01000701.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7637 — Liberty Global/BASE Belgium)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 281/07)






1.


On 17 August 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 Telenet Group Holding NV (‘Telenet’, Belgium), controlled by Liberty Global plc (United Kingdom), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking BASE Company NV (‘BASE’, Belgium), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Telenet: Telenet is a cable network operator in Belgium specialising in the supply of fixed internet, fixed telephony services and cable television to customers throughout Flanders and parts of Brussels. It also operates a number of pay TV channels and video-on-demand (‘VOD’) services. Telenet also offers mobile telecommunications services as a virtual mobile network operator in Belgium, and supplies professional communication services to businesses in Belgium and Luxembourg,
—   for BASE: BASE is a mobile network operator that offers mobile telecommunications services in Belgium. BASE also offers wholesales access to its network to mobile virtual network operators in Belgium.










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.7637 — Liberty Global/BASE Belgium, 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-493/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14, CX v Commission
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, medical report, pension scheme, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2015371EN.01002601.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/26





Appeal brought on 26 August 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14, CX v Commission
(Case T-493/15 P)
(2015/C 371/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: CX (Enghien, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-5/14 CX v Commission;










—


refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may rule on the other pleas in law;










—


reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, relating to medical opinions produced in the framework of disciplinary proceedings, alleging errors of law due to a failure to take account of (i) the rules on the burden of proof, (ii) Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’), (iii) Article 59 of the regulations and (iv) the powers of the Civil Service Tribunal.










2.


Second plea in law, relating to the concept of a body of consistent evidence, alleging a failure to take account of the scope of obligations regarding the collection of evidence and defects in reasoning.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the duty to care, since the Civil Service Tribunal held that, on the basis of the evidence available to it when it adopted the contested decision, the Commission had acted in breach of its duty of care by failing, for the third hearing, to invite the applicant at first instance before it on the ground that, first, the facts subject to the proceedings were relatively old, secondly, that the official was on sick leave and that, third, his lawyer had refused, for a second time, the invitation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of reasoning as regards the consequences of the infringement of the right to be heard and substantive factual inaccuracy, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal relied upon substantively inaccurate facts in order to conclude that hearing the applicant at first instance could have had an effect on the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015281EN.01000201.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 August 2015
(2015/C 281/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1506




JPY


Japanese yen


137,84




DKK


Danish krone


7,4635




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72900




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5653




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0834




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3885




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,109




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,31




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2242




RON


Romanian leu


4,4328




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3606




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5937




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5181




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9182




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7596




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6084




KRW


South Korean won


1 356,95




ZAR


South African rand


15,0211




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3786




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5553




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 146,48




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8489




PHP


Philippine peso


53,624




RUB


Russian rouble


79,6550




THB


Thai baht


40,888




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0621




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5343




INR


Indian rupee


76,0504






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-492/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, airline, airport, control of State aid, public financing








C_2015363EN.01004101.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/41





Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
(Case T-492/15)
(2015/C 363/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:






—


procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,










—


an incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,










—


misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts,










—


manifest contradictions in the contested decision,










—


incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market;










—


incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU.
Case T-489/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile phone, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015337EN.01004301.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/43





Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)
(Case T-489/15)
(2015/C 337/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SNAP’ — Application for Registration No 9 125 055

Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2015 in Case R 1938/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7755 — Mahindra/MHI/MAM) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, commercial vehicle, economic concentration, electronic equipment, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2015281EN.01000601.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7755 — Mahindra/MHI/MAM)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 281/06)






1.


On 19 August 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 undertakings Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (‘MHI’, Japan) and Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (‘Mahindra’, India) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Mitsubishi Agricultural Machinery Co. Ltd (‘MAM’, Japan) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for MHI: engineering, manufacture and sale of electrical equipment and electronics,
—   for Mahindra: manufacture and sale of utility vehicles and agricultural equipment,
—   for MAM: manufacture and sale of agricultural equipment.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7755 — Mahindra/MHI/MAM, 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.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1472 of 26 August 2015 on amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, border control, customs inspection, free movement of goods, free movement of persons, frontier, frontier region








L_2015225EN.01000301.xml










28.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 225/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1472
of 26 August 2015
         
on amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Protocol No 10 on Cyprus to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (1),


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 of 29 April 2004 on a regime under Article 2 of Protocol No 10 to the Act of Accession (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 lays down a list of crossing points at which persons and goods may cross the line between the areas under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and those areas in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.












(2)


Following agreement on the opening of new crossing points in Deryneia and Lefka-Apliki, it is necessary to adapt Annex I.












(3)


The Government of the Republic of Cyprus gave its agreement to this adaptation.












(4)


The Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce was consulted on this matter,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 866/2004 is replaced by the following



                           ‘ANNEX I
List of crossing points referred to in Article 2(4)






—


Agios Dhometios










—


Astromeritis — Zodhia










—


Kato Pyrgos — Karavostasi










—


Kato Pyrgos — Kokkina










—


Kokkina — Pachyammos










—


Ledra Palace










—


Ledra Street










—


Lefka — Apliki










—


Deryneia.’
                              








Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 August 2015.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 955.

(2)  
            OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 128.
Case T-239/14: Order of the General Court of 26 August 2015 — Monard v Commission
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, access to EU information, provision of documents, right to information








C_2015381EN.01005803.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/58





Order of the General Court of 26 August 2015 — Monard v Commission
(Case T-239/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/72)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  C 212, 7.7.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7707 — Cinven/Synlab) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, environmental research, holding company, investment company, medical diagnosis, merger control, provision of services, research body








C_2015281EN.01000401.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7707 — Cinven/Synlab)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 281/04)






1.


On 17 August 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Cinven Capital Management (V) General Partner Limited (‘Cinven’, Guernsey) acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Synlab Holding GmbH (‘Synlab’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Cinven is a private equity business engaged in the provision of investment management services to a number of investment funds,










—


Synlab is a pan-European provider of laboratory diagnostics services for human and veterinary medicine and environmental analysis 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7707 — Cinven/Synlab, 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.7730 — Acticall / Sitel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, customers, economic concentration, merger control, outsourcing, provision of services, vocational training








C_2015281EN.01000501.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7730 — Acticall / Sitel)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 281/05)






1.


On 14 August 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 Groupe Acticall SA (‘Acticall’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Sitel Worldwide Corporation (‘Sitel’, USA), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Acticall: integrated services group specialised in customer relationship management, including inbound call management by contact centres, customer relationship consulting, digital CRM consulting, and customer CRM training. Acticall’s main shareholder is Creadev S.A.S., a private equity firm,
—   for Sitel: customer care outsourcing services through contact centres, offering a full range of services, including customer service, customer acquisition and technical support. Sitel’s main shareholder is Onex Corporation, a Canadian diversified company.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7730 — Acticall / Sitel 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.
Case T-488/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMART)
Date: 2015-08-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile phone, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015337EN.01004201.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/42





Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMART)
(Case T-488/15)
(2015/C 337/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SMART’ — Application for Registration No 8 431 091

Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1734/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.