do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7706 — Kinnevik/Qliro Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, retail selling








C_2015368EN.01000101.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7706 — Kinnevik/Qliro Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 368/01)
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 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 32015M7706. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining industry








C_2015368EN.01000201.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/2





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 368/03)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 26 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Trafigura and Nyrstar. On 30 October 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7790 — Carrefour Group/Rue du Commerce) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advertising, economic concentration, electronic commerce, food industry, merger control, supermarket, vehicle parts








C_2015368EN.01000401.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7790 — Carrefour Group/Rue du Commerce)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 368/05)






1.


On 28 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 the undertaking Carrefour France SAS (‘Carrefour’, France) belonging to the group Carrefour SA acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Rue du Commerce (‘RDC’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carrefour: retail distribution predominantly in the food sector operating in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Carrefour operates distribution activities through classical retail outlets such as hypermarkets, supermarkets and convenience stores, but also through cash & carry and hypercash stores. Carrefour is also active in e-commerce for food (Ooshop) and non-food products (On Line Carrefour). Carrefour operates in 34 countries with 11 910 stores on 4 continents (Europe, South America, Africa and Asia), including 10 391 in Europe,
—   for RDC: online distribution of computer and electronic products including, inter alia, computers, image and sound equipment, accessories and peripherals, GPS and telecommunications. RDC also offers a virtual shopping mall (online platform) enabling merchant partners to offer their products. Finally, RDC is active in the sale of advertising space on the internet.










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.7790 — Carrefour Group/Rue du Commerce, 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.
Corrigendum to Council Decision 2013/728/EU of 2 December 2013 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization as regards an extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions and the moratorium on non-violation and situation complaints (OJ L 332, 11.12.2013)
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, abolition of customs duties, electronic commerce








L_2015290EN.01001801.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 290/18







Corrigendum to Council Decision 2013/728/EU of 2 December 2013 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization as regards an extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions and the moratorium on non-violation and situation complaints

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 332 of 11 December 2013
)


On page 17, Article 1, indents:
for:






‘—


TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints […],










—


e-commerce […].’,




read:






‘—


TRIPS non-violation and situation complaints WT/MIN(13)/W/2,










—


e-commerce WT/MIN(13)/W/3.’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015368EN.01000301.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 November 2015
(2015/C 368/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0883




JPY


Japanese yen


132,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4592




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71260




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3916




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0833




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3065




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,044




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,97




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2392




RON


Romanian leu


4,4486




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1215




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5233




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4320




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4351




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6450




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5310




KRW


South Korean won


1 240,66




ZAR


South African rand


15,1123




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9065




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5545




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 751,76




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6781




PHP


Philippine peso


51,047




RUB


Russian rouble


68,8654




THB


Thai baht


38,702




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1364




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9972




INR


Indian rupee


71,7100






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-571/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, customs duties, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), customs transit, free zone, transit, transport under customs control








C_2016090EN.01000302.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen
(Case C-571/15)
(2016/C 090/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Questions referred

Question 1:
Is the VAT rule of a Member State which states that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country one of the situations referred to in Article 156 as specified in the first subparagraph of Article 61 and in the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

If this question is answered in the affirmative:
Question 2:
Where goods are subject to customs duties, does the chargeable event also occur and VAT also become chargeable in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax when the chargeable event in respect of those duties occurs and those duties become chargeable, if the chargeable event in respect of those duties and the chargeability of those duties occurs within a free zone of control type I and the VAT legislation of the Member State to which the free zone belongs provides that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country?
If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
Question 3:
Where goods transported under the external transit procedure without that procedure ending in a free zone of control type I are removed from customs supervision in the free zone so that a customs debt is incurred in respect of the goods under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, (2) does the chargeable event occur and VAT become chargeable in respect of goods at the same time in accordance with another chargeable event, namely under Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code, because, prior to the act by means of which the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods were not presented to customs at one of the customs offices competent in respect of the free zone situated within the territory of the country and the transit procedure was not ended there?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7807 — Sun Capital/Finlays Horticulture)
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crop production, economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control, sustainable agriculture








C_2015368EN.01000102.xml










6.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7807 — Sun Capital/Finlays Horticulture)
(2015/C 368/02)
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 English 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 32015M7807. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-619/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council
Date: 2015-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Central African Republic, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016027EN.01006801.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/68





Action brought on 6 November 2015 — Badica and Kardiam v Council
(Case T-619/15)
(2016/C 027/86)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic), Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 and point B 1 of the Annex to that regulation in so far as the applicants are added to Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 of 10 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic;










—


order the Council 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 rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection. This plea is expressed in two parts:






—


first part, alleging a failure on the part of the Council to notify the applicants individually of the decision to freeze funds;










—


second part, alleging a failure to disclose the evidence and the file, and infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of transparency.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts relating to the applicants’ activities resulting in an error of law.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging defects in the examination carried out by the Council.