do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7835 — Randstad/Proffice) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, employment service, holding company, merger control, provision of services, temporary employment agency








C_2015437EN.01000801.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7835 — Randstad/Proffice)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/09)






1.


On 18 December 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 Randstad Holding NV (‘Randstad’, the Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Proffice AB (publ) (‘Proffice’, Sweden) by way of public bid announced on 30 November 2015.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Randstad: an international provider of temporary employment services, permanent placement services and other human resources related services,
—   Proffice: provider of temporary employment services, permanent placement services and other human resources related services in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway.










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.7835 — Randstad/Proffice, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015437EN.01000301.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 December 2015
(2015/C 437/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0947




JPY


Japanese yen


131,83




DKK


Danish krone


7,4628




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73420




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1900




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0806




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5120




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,91




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2412




RON


Romanian leu


4,5285




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1990




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5074




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5183




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4849




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6052




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5396




KRW


South Korean won


1 279,40




ZAR


South African rand


16,6252




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0880




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6425




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 922,54




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6943




PHP


Philippine peso


51,504




RUB


Russian rouble


76,9500




THB


Thai baht


39,442




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3142




MXN


Mexican peso


18,9109




INR


Indian rupee


72,4801






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, holding company, merger control, retail trade, tobacco industry, wholesale trade








C_2015437EN.01000201.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/03)
On 21 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 German 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 32015M7829. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-759/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, fixing of prices, motor vehicle industry, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition








C_2016059EN.01004902.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/49





Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
(Case T-759/15)
(2016/C 059/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (FCFE) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Rodriguez, Solicitor, M. Engel and G. Maisto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action for annulment admissible;










—


annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision dated 21 October 2015 addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (‘Luxembourg’) in case SA.38375 (2914/C ex 2014 NN) (‘Contested Decision’);










—


order the Commission to pay FCFE’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 107 TFEU because the Commission has misapplied the concept of ‘selective advantage’ and failed to show that the APA is liable to distort competition.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 296(2) TFEU and its duty to state reasons through its failure to explain how it derives the arm’s length principle from Union law, or even what the principle is and through its superficial description of the APA’s effect on competition.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of legal certainty since the Commission’s novel formulation of the arm’s length principle introduces complete uncertainty and confusion as to when an advance pricing agreement, and indeed any transfer pricing analysis might breach EU state aid rules.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of legitimate expectations since the Commission has created a legitimate expectation that for state aid purposes it assesses transfer pricing arrangements on the basis of the OECD Guidelines and its sudden departure from this has breached the principle of legitimate expectations.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7871 — Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, railway industry








C_2015437EN.01000601.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7871 — Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/07)






1.


On 17 December 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 Caisse de dépôt et placement Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada) and Bombardier Inc (‘Bombardier’, Canada) acquire joint control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation of a newly created undertaking, Bombardier Transportation (Investment) UK Limited (‘BTUK’, United Kingdom), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CDPQ: investment and management of funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans.
—   for Bombardier: design, development, manufacture and marketing of aircraft and rail transportation equipment.
—   for BTUK: parent holding company of the entities currently forming the rail transportation business of Bombardier.










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 number M.7871 — Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7795 — Ratos/Varma/Real Estate JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2015437EN.01000101.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7795 — Ratos/Varma/Real Estate JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/01)
On 18 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 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 32015M7795. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-764/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, airline, airport, control of State aid








C_2016068EN.01004302.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/43





Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
(Case T-764/15)
(2016/C 068/55)
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.32833 (2011/C) (ex 20111NN) — Hahn Airport;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits, in essence, the following:






—


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










—


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,










—


incorrect legal assessment of the measures in favour of the airport concerned in so far as certain measures were not classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) of TFEU and others were classified as State aid which is compatible with the common market,










—


failure to take into consideration that all the aid referred to in the contested decision in favour of the airport concerned was, in end effect, passed on to Ryanair as the most important user of that airport.
Case T-769/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — SeNaPro v OHIM — Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke (Dolokorn)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fertiliser, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01003001.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/30





Action brought on 29 December 2015 — SeNaPro v OHIM — Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke (Dolokorn)
(Case T-769/15)
(2016/C 078/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: SeNaPro GmbH (Pommelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schröder, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke GmbH (Rottenmann, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Dolokorn’ — Application No 11 877 181

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2015 in Case R 2643/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by SeNaPro GmbH.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7899 — Alimentation Couche Tard/Topaz Energy Group/Resource Property Investment Fund/Esso Ireland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2015437EN.01000701.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7899 — Alimentation Couche Tard/Topaz Energy Group/Resource Property Investment Fund/Esso Ireland)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/08)






1.


On 18 December 2015, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking 9121-2738 Québec Inc., ultimately controlled by Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (‘ACT’ of Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertakings Topaz Energy Group Limited (‘Topaz’ of Ireland), Resource Property Investment Fund plc (‘RPIF’ of Ireland) and Esso Ireland Limited (‘Esso Ireland’ of Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ACT is a worldwide convenience store operator active in the EEA through its petrol station network in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia,










—


Topaz is active in the non-retail and retail supply of motor fuels, lubricants, heating oil and aviation fuel in Ireland and in Northern Ireland,










—


RPIF holds investments in a number of Topaz’s properties including service stations and depots,










—


Esso Ireland is active in the non-retail and retail supply of fuel products in Ireland.














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.7899 — Alimentation Couche Tard/Topaz Energy Group/Resource Property Investment Fund/Esso Ireland, 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-775/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — EK/servicegroup v OHIM (FERLI)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2016078EN.01003201.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/32





Action brought on 29 December 2015 — EK/servicegroup v OHIM (FERLI)
(Case T-775/15)
(2016/C 078/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: EK/servicegroup eG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller und T. Müller, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FERLI’ — Application for Registration No 13 850 235

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2015 in Case R 1233/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 28 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 9(4) of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7787 — Panasonic Healthcare/Bayer’s Diabetes Care Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, holding company, medical device, merger control








C_2015437EN.01000102.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7787 — Panasonic Healthcare/Bayer’s Diabetes Care Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 437/02)
On 23 November 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 32015M7787. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015437EN.01000401.xml










29.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 December 2015
(2015/C 437/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0962




JPY


Japanese yen


132,05




DKK


Danish krone


7,4631




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73535




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1863




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0838




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5380




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,13




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2455




RON


Romanian leu


4,5255




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1923




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5089




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5207




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4957




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6019




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5436




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,83




ZAR


South African rand


16,7163




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1114




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6295




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 967,37




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7119




PHP


Philippine peso


51,566




RUB


Russian rouble


78,8666




THB


Thai baht


39,604




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3034




MXN


Mexican peso


18,9347




INR


Indian rupee


72,4616






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.