do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-208/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax law, tax relief, tax system








C_2016211EN.01003801.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/38






Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-208/16 P)
(2016/C 211/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze und R. Kanitz)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded;










—


annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises one ground of appeal in support of its appeal.
There is an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court disregarded that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (KStG), known as ‘the restructuring clause’, is not selective:






—


the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State;










—


the ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and the internal structure of the tax system. The ‘restructuring clause’ is justified by, first, the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, second, combatting abuse, namely the prevention of abusive arrangements, and, third, the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of shares and an acquisition of shares for the purposes of restructuring.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016131EN.01000102.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 131/02)
On 18 March 2016, 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 32016M7918. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-394/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission (Appeal — OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission — Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned — Action for annulment and compensation)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commissioner, dismissal








C_2016279EN.01000701.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/7





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission
(Case C-394/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission - Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned - Action for annulment and compensation))
(2016/C 279/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr John Dalli is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7906 — Equistone Partners Europe/Mecaplast Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2016131EN.01000101.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7906 — Equistone Partners Europe/Mecaplast Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 131/01)
On 11 March 2016, 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 32016M7906. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/415 of 21 March 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers and repealing Decision 2008/577/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 75, 22.3.2016)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical compound, import (EU), originating product








L_2016098EN.01000601.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 98/6







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/415 of 21 March 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers and repealing Decision 2008/577/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 75 of 22 March 2016
)


On page 10, in recital 2 and on page 13, in Article 1:
for:

               ‘JSC Dorogobuzh’,
read:

               ‘PJSC Dorogobuzh’.
Case T-200/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to property — Proportionality — Error of fact — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to life — Right to a family life — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Tunisia, common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_2016191EN.01002302.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/23





Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council
(Case T-200/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to property - Proportionality - Error of fact - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to life - Right to a family life - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 191/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014, amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 38), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 2), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7911 — CNCE/KM Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, mechanical engineering, merger control, rubber industry








C_2016131EN.01000201.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7911 — CNCE/KM Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 131/03)
On 15 March 2016, 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 32016M7911. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-209/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, reimbursement of aid, tax law, tax relief, tax system








C_2016222EN.01000601.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/6






Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission

(Case C-209/16 P)
(2016/C 222/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016 in Case T-620/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as unfounded;










—


annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, C(2011)275 final, in State aid case C 7/10 — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), under Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on one ground of appeal.
There has been an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 107 TFEU. The General Court disregarded the fact that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on corporation tax; ‘the KStG’), the ‘restructuring clause’, is not selective:






—


The ‘restructuring clause’ is not a priori selective, since it does not provide for any derogation from the relevant system of reference and is a general provision capable of benefiting any undertaking in the territory of the Member State.










—


The ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and inner logic of the tax system. The restructuring clause is justified, first, by the principle of taxation according to economic ability to pay, second, by the objective of tackling abuse, namely in preventing abusive structuring, and, third, by the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of a shareholding and an acquisition of a shareholding for the purposes of restructuring.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, mechanical engineering, medium-sized industry, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2016131EN.01000601.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 131/07)






1.


On 6 April 2016, 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 Gilde V Management BV (‘Gilde V Management’, Netherlands) acquires through Gilde Fund V, belonging to the group of Gilde funds, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Royal Reesink NV (‘Royal Reesink’, Netherlands) by way of public bid announced on 8 February 2016.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Gilde V Management: advice to, management of and investment in mid-market companies,
—   for Royal Reesink: distribution of branded machinery and equipment, namely machinery for agriculture and horticulture, landscape maintenance, material handling and civil engineering applications; and distribution of steel products, personal protection products and hydraulic components and systems.










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.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink, 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.