do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7610 — Danish Crown/Westfleisch/WestCrown JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cooperative, economic concentration, meat processing industry, merger control








C_2015364EN.01000701.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7610 — Danish Crown/Westfleisch/WestCrown JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 364/06)






1.


On 27 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Danish Crown A/S (‘Danish Crown’, Denmark) together with Westfleisch SCE mbH (‘Westfleisch’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the newly created joint venture WestCrown JV (‘WestCrown’, Germany).










2.


Both Danish Crown and Westfleisch are active internationally in the food industry, specialised in the slaughtering, de-boning, processing and refining of meat as well as the sale of fresh meat and meat products.






—


Danish Crown is a wholly owned subsidiary of Leverandørselskabet Danish Crown Amba which is a cooperative company owned by a total of 8 278 (2013/14) farmer members who supply raw materials — live pigs, cattle and calves — to its slaughterhouses,










—


Westfleisch is a cooperative based in Münster, Germany owned by approximately 4 200 (2014) farmers,










—


WestCrown shall be active in the de-boning of slaughtered sows and the subsequent marketing and sale of fresh sow meat.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7610 — Danish Crown/Westfleisch/WestCrown JV, 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’).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2061 of 4 November 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Oberlausitzer Biokarpfen (PGI))
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Saxony, designation of origin, fresh product, freshwater fish, labelling, product designation








L_2015301EN.01000501.xml










18.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 301/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/2061
of 4 November 2015
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Oberlausitzer Biokarpfen (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany's application to register the name ‘Oberlausitzer Biokarpfen’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Oberlausitzer Biokarpfen’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Oberlausitzer Biokarpfen’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. — Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 4 November 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 212, 27.6.2015, p. 9.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-562/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: comparative advertising, consumer information, consumer price, dissemination of information, prices, retail outlet








C_2016027EN.01001101.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU
(Case C-562/15)
(2016/C 027/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS

Respondent: ITM Alimentaire International SASU

Questions referred







1.


Whether Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC of 12 December 2006 (1) …, which provides that ‘[c]omparative advertising shall … be permitted when … it is not misleading [and] it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services’, must be interpreted as meaning that a comparison of the price of goods sold by retail outlets is permitted only if the goods are sold in shops having the same format or of the same size;










2.


Whether the fact that the shops whose prices are compared are of different sizes and formats constitutes material information within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) that must necessarily be brought to the knowledge of the consumer;










3.


If so, to what degree and/or via what medium must that information be disseminated to the consumer?






(1)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015364EN.01000201.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 November 2015
(2015/C 364/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1032




JPY


Japanese yen


133,02




DKK


Danish krone


7,4585




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71320




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3843




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0885




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3370




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,097




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,19




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2532




RON


Romanian leu


4,4383




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0950




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5457




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4450




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5500




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6356




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5466




KRW


South Korean won


1 254,62




ZAR


South African rand


15,1851




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9914




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5855




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 062,24




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7441




PHP


Philippine peso


51,713




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7262




THB


Thai baht


39,276




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2724




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2111




INR


Indian rupee


72,3534






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information on the date of signature of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) concerning the membership of the Union in the Extended Commission of the Convention for the Conservation for Southern Bluefin Tuna
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: catch area, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing agreement, fishing rights, fishing vessel, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2015288EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 288/1







Information on the date of signature of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) concerning the membership of the Union in the Extended Commission of the Convention for the Conservation for Southern Bluefin Tuna

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) concerning the membership of the Union in the Extended Commission of the Convention for the Conservation for Southern Bluefin Tuna (1) was signed respectively in Brussels on 29 April 2015 and in Yeosu, South Korea, on 12 October 2015.
The Agreement applies provisionally from 12 October 2015 pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Exchange of Letters.


(1)  
            OJ L 234, 8.9.2015, p. 1.
Case C-565/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Hans-Peter Ofenböck
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, consumer protection, fuel, price control, restriction on competition








C_2016038EN.01002401.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Hans-Peter Ofenböck
(Case C-565/15)
(2016/C 038/35)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hans-Peter Ofenböck

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) preclude the application of national legislation under which the freedom of service station operators to change fuel prices is restricted in such a way that they may lawfully increase the sale price only once a day?










2.


If Question 1 cannot automatically be answered in the affirmative, and, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the examination of the lawfulness of such a restriction in the light of the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive must instead be conducted with reference to the circumstances of each individual case:
Which factors would the case-by-case examination of the lawfulness of such a restriction in the light of the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as required by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Case C-540/08, have to take into account in the case of a provision restricting the freedom to increase consumer prices?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/882 of 8 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/932/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen (OJ L 143, 9.6.2015)
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Yemen, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2015288EN.01001601.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 288/16







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/882 of 8 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/932/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Yemen

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 143 of 9 June 2015
)


On page 12, Article 3:
for:

‘This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’,

read:

‘This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 4 November 2015 in the criminal proceedings against A (Case E-26/15)
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, criminal proceedings, establishment, fight against crime, identity document, interpretation of the law, money laundering, provision of services, terrorism, trust company








C_2016480EN.01000602.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/6





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 4 November 2015 in the criminal proceedings against A
(Case E-26/15)
(2016/C 480/08)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 4 November 2015 from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the criminal proceedings against A on the following questions:






1.


Must Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing be interpreted as meaning that ‘trust and company service providers’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(3)(c) and point (7)(b) of Article 3 of that Directive, are subject to the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive solely in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which they are established (in welchem [der Dienstleister für Trusts und Gesellschaften] seinen rechtlichen Sitz hat)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: what criteria must be used to determine whether ‘trust and company services providers’ are under the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive in accordance with the legislation of another Member State?










3.


Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 also apply where the company for which administrative services are provided is a company not incorporated in a Member State?
Publication of the countervalues in national currency of the financial thresholds expressed in euro in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 and in the Annex to Council Directive 93/7/EEC
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cultural object, economic value, euro, national currency








C_2015364EN.01000601.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/6





Publication of the countervalues in national currency of the financial thresholds expressed in euro in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 and in the Annex to Council Directive 93/7/EEC
(2015/C 364/05)
Pursuant to the requirement under Annex I(B) to Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 and point B of the Annex to Council Directive 93/7/EEC, as modified by Directives 96/100/EC and 2001/38/EC, the financial thresholds applicable to certain categories of cultural goods should be converted into the national currencies of those Member States which do not have the euro as their currency and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The countervalues listed hereafter were calculated on the basis of the average daily value of each of the currencies concerned, expressed in euro, during the 24 months ending on the last day of August 2015. These revised values take effect on 31 December 2015.










EUR


1


15 000


30 000


50 000


150 000




BGN Bulgarian lev


1,9558


29 337


58 674


97 790


293 370




CZK Czech koruna


27,2993


409 490


818 980


1 364 967


4 094 902




DKK Danish krone


7,4566


111 849


223 697


372 829


1 118 487




GBP Pound sterling


0,7844


11 766


23 531


39 219


117 657




HRK Croatian kuna


7,6238


114 357


228 714


381 189


1 143 568




HUF Hungarian forint


306,4634


4 596 950


9 193 901


15 323 168


45 969 503




PLN Polish zloty


4,1759


62 638


125 277


208 795


626 384




RON Romanian leu


4,4450


66 675


133 350


222 250


666 751




SEK Swedish krona


9,1459


137 189


274 378


457 296


1 371 889
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7776 — BTPS/CPPIB/South Bank Tower Estate) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: London, building, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, real estate business








C_2015364EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7776 — BTPS/CPPIB/South Bank Tower Estate)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 364/01)
On 29 October 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 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 32015M7776. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015364EN.01000301.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 November 2015
(2015/C 364/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0976




JPY


Japanese yen


132,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4587




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71315




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3935




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0869




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3410




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,100




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,48




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2540




RON


Romanian leu


4,4345




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1222




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5301




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4406




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5065




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6364




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5363




KRW


South Korean won


1 245,49




ZAR


South African rand


15,2542




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9545




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5860




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 936,68




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7104




PHP


Philippine peso


51,495




RUB


Russian rouble


69,5445




THB


Thai baht


39,048




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1813




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1848




INR


Indian rupee


72,1429






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-564/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, basis of tax assessment, fraud, invoicing, principle of proportionality, tax authorities, tax collection, tax offence, tax relief








C_2016090EN.01000202.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-564/15)
(2016/C 090/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tibor Farkas

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Is a practice of the tax authority, based on the provisions of the Law on VAT, compatible with the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular the principle of proportionality with the objectives of tax neutrality and the prevention of tax fraud, if, by that practice, that authority declares that a purchaser of an item of property (or recipient of a service) is liable for a tax difference in a situation in which the seller of the property (or supplier of the service) issues an invoice in accordance with the ordinary tax system for a transaction to which the reverse charge procedure applies and declares and pays to the Treasury the tax relating to that invoice, and the purchaser of the item of property (or recipient of the service), for his part, deducts the VAT paid to the issuer of the invoice, even though he may not exercise his right to deduct the VAT declared as a tax difference?










2.


Is the imposition of a penalty for selecting an incorrect method of taxation in the case of a declaration of a tax difference, which also entails the imposition of a tax fine of 50 %, proportionate where the Treasury has not incurred any loss of revenue and there is no evidence of abuse?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ for 2016 (OJ C 351, 23.10.2015)
Date: 2015-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, exchange of information, invitation to tender, public awareness campaign








C_2015364EN.01000801.xml










4.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/8





Corrigendum to Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ for 2016
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 351 of 23 October 2015
)
(2015/C 364/07)
On page 14, Section 9:

for:


‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved. They should also have a significant impact that can be measured through relevant indicators referred to in section 11.4.’,


read:


‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved.’.