do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7810 — Vista/Solera) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015408EN.01000302.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7810 — Vista/Solera)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/06)
On 3 December 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 32015M7810. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7688 — Intel/Altera) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, information technology industry, merger control








C_2015408EN.01000201.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7688 — Intel/Altera)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/03)
On 14 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 32015M7688. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-192/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems v College bescherming persoonsgegevens
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, third country








C_2016078EN.01001103.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/11





Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems v College bescherming persoonsgegevens
(Case C-192/15) (1)

(2016/C 078/16)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Case T-721/15: Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016068EN.01003201.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/32





Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)
(Case T-721/15)
(2016/C 068/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evonik Industries AG (Marl, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DINCH’ — Community trade mark No 2 563 856

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2080/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal of the other party before the Board of Appeal be dismissed;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015408EN.01000401.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 December 2015
(2015/C 408/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0875




JPY


Japanese yen


133,64




DKK


Danish krone


7,4607




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72710




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2236




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0820




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5675




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,53




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3357




RON


Romanian leu


4,4854




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1788




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5099




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4793




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4286




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6430




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5363




KRW


South Korean won


1 287,02




ZAR


South African rand


15,9518




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9795




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6368




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 299,16




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6675




PHP


Philippine peso


51,339




RUB


Russian rouble


75,9200




THB


Thai baht


39,116




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1297




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5495




INR


Indian rupee


72,6871






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-718/15: Action brought on 9 December 2015 — PTC Therapeutics International v EMA
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, disclosure of information, market approval, medicinal product, provision of documents, trade information








C_2016059EN.01003701.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/37





Action brought on 9 December 2015 — PTC Therapeutics International v EMA
(Case T-718/15)
(2016/C 059/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, C. Thomas, Barrister, G. Castle, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/722323/2015 of 25 November 2015 to grant a third party access to the information about a medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), in so far as the decision concerns commercially confidential information the release of which will infringe the applicant’s rights and in so far as the decision is prohibited by EU law;










—


remit the contested decision back to the EMA for further consideration regarding redaction of confidential passages in consultation with the applicant; and,










—


order the EMA to pay all costs in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the document at issue is protected by Article 4(2) and/or Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the document at issue in its entirety constitutes commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of the said Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the release of the document would undermine the EMA’s decision making process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the outcome of a proper balancing exercise, as required by law, would have been a decision not to release any part of the document.