do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, travel agency








C_2016207EN.01000102.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 207/02)
On 22 April 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 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 32016M7968. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-533/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, equal treatment, single payment scheme, transitional period (EU)








C_2016305EN.01005301.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/53





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-533/13) (1)

(2016/C 305/71)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7854 — AGRAVIS/Wilmar International/H Bögel) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal production, crop production, economic concentration, hunting, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2016207EN.01001601.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7854 — AGRAVIS/Wilmar International/H Bögel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 207/08)






1.


On 2 June 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 undertakings Agrarrohstoff Beteiligungs GmbH (‘Agrarrohstoff’, Germany) belonging to the group AGRAVIS Raiffeisen AG (‘AGRAVIS’, Germany) and WIL Holdings GmbH (‘WIL’, Germany) belonging to the group Wilmar International Ltd (‘Wilmar’, Singapore) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of H. Bögel GmbH & Co. KG (‘Bögel’, Germany) and of H. Bögel Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (‘Bögel GmbH’), currenly solely controlled by WIL, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AGRAVIS is active in cooperatively organised land trade, essentially in the German Federal States of North-Rhine Westphalia, Bremen, Lower-Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Berlin, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony und Hamburg, including the production and sale of compound animal feed,










—


Wilmar’s main activities are the production of palm oil, the crushing of oilseeds, the refinement of edible oils, the grinding and refinement of sugar, the production of special greases, oleochemical products, biodiesel and fertilisers as well as the processing of grains,










—


Bögel is active in the international wholesale of animal feed ingredients, especially palm kernel expeller, rapeseed meals, soybean meals and dried sugar beet pulp,










—


Bögel GmbH as the personally liable parent company (‘Komplementärin’) of Bögel is a pure holding company.














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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7854 — AGRAVIS/Wilmar International/H Bögel, 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’).
Case C-330/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, business lease, commercial transaction, payment, service








C_2016335EN.01003302.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki
(Case C-330/16)
(2016/C 335/45)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Piotr Zarski

Respondent: Andrzej Stadnicki

Questions referred







1.


Does the letting of premises constitute a service within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 3 (and recitals 2, 3, 7, 11, 18 and 23) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions? (1)











2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, where a letting contract of indefinite duration is concluded, does the contract or the single, separate ‘transaction’, which is what each individual rental payment in return for access to the premises and utilities is, constitute a commercial transaction within the meaning of Articles 1(1), 2(1), 3, 6 and 8 (and recitals 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 26 and 35) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions?










3.


If in the answer to Question 2 it is established that each individual payment of rent in return for access to the premises and utilities does constitute a commercial transaction, must Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 12(4) (and recital 3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as meaning that the Member States can exclude application of the directive to letting contracts concluded before 16 March 2013 in cases where late individual payments of rent occur after that date?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.