do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8079 — RPC Group/British Polythene Industries) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry, rubber industry








C_2016219EN.01002801.xml










17.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/28





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8079 — RPC Group/British Polythene Industries)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 219/07)






1.


On 9 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 undertaking RPC Group PLC (‘RPC’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking British Polythene Industries PLC (‘BPI’, United Kingdom) by way of public bid announced on 9 June 2016.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for RPC: RPC is a UK-based rigid plastic products design and engineering company for the packaging and non-packaging sectors, with 24 design and engineering development centres and 113 manufacturing sites in 28 countries employing more than 18 000 people and manufacturing a wide range of standard and bespoke packaging for the food and non-food, consumer and industrial sectors. RPC does not produce flexible plastic products,
—   for BPI: BPI is a UK-based manufacturer of flexible plastic products: polythene film, bags and sacks. BPI supplies a large number of customers with a range of products including packaging and non-packaging films and bags. BPI also recycles polythene waste.










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.8079 — RPC Group/British Polythene Industries, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8047 — Inter IKEA Holding/Parts of INGKA Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, merger control








C_2016219EN.01000102.xml










17.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8047 — Inter IKEA Holding/Parts of INGKA Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 219/02)
On 13 June 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 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 32016M8047. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision of 17 June 2016 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, budgetary expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), general budget (EU)








C_2016227EN.01000201.xml










23.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 17 June 2016
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
(2016/C 227/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2),










—


on 15 April 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2016,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted on 17 June 2016.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Luxembourg, 17 June 2016.


For the Council


The President

J. R. V. A. DIJSSELBLOEM




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.
Case T-629/15: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2016 — Hako v EUIPO (SCRUBMASTER) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCRUBMASTER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cleaning industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01003701.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/37





Order of the General Court of 17 June 2016 — Hako v EUIPO (SCRUBMASTER)
(Case T-629/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCRUBMASTER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 305/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 2197/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SCRUBMASTER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Hako GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation (Case M.7538 — Knorr Bremse/Vossloh) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, railway industry, safety device








C_2016219EN.01000101.xml










17.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/1





Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation
(Case M.7538 — Knorr Bremse/Vossloh)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 219/01)
On 21 May 2015, the Commission decided that the notified operation in the above case does not fall within the scope of the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) because it does not constitute a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the said Regulation. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulation. The full text of the decision is available only in Dutch 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 32015M7538. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7946 — PAI/Nestlé/Froneri) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dairy ice cream, economic concentration, food industry, merger control








C_2016219EN.01002901.xml










17.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/29





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7946 — PAI/Nestlé/Froneri)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 219/08)






1.


On 10 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 PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France) and Nestlé SA (‘Nestlé’, Switzerland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created joint venture (‘Froneri’, United Kingdom), by way of purchase of shares and transfer of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for PAI: private equity investor active in a broad range of industries across the EEA. Its portfolio company R&R is a UK industrial ice cream manufacturer active in a number of EEA countries,
—   for Nestlé: active in the production, marketing and sale of a large variety of food and beverage products, including ice cream products, across the EEA,
—   Froneri: will comprise the entirety of R&R Ice Cream’s business, which is principally active in Europe, South Africa and Australia and Nestlé’s ice cream businesses in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in certain other geographic areas including the Philippines, Brazil and Argentina. It is proposed that Nestlé will also transfer to the JV elements of its frozen food businesses (but not frozen pizza) in a number of European countries and its chilled dairy business in the Philippines.










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.7946 — PAI/Nestlé/Froneri, 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’).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/982 of 17 June 2016 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, import (EU), import restriction, international sanctions, originating product, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2016161EN.01004001.xml










18.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 161/40








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/982
of 17 June 2016
         
amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).












(2)


The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implement its non-recognition policy.












(3)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2017.












(4)


Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The second paragraph of Article 5 of Decision 2014/386/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 23 June 2017.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 June 2016.


For the Council


The President

J.R.V.A. DIJSSELBLOEM
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ L 183, 24.6.2014, p. 70).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016219EN.01001001.xml










17.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/10





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 June 2016
(2016/C 219/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1174 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4355 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79033 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3915 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0812 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3798 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,067 




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4490 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5390 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2804 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5212 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4530 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6715 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5899 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5116 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,79 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2240 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3593 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5240 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 970,82 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5885 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,899 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,5915 




THB


Thai baht


39,455 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8943 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1845 




INR


Indian rupee


75,2010 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-307/16: Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAEC, European treaties, access to EU information, disclosure of information, nuclear safety, provision of documents








C_2016305EN.01003901.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/39





Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission
(Case T-307/16)
(2016/C 305/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the contested Commission Decision of 15 April 2016, reference number Ref. GestDem No 2015/5866 null and void; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 that Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) is applicable to Euratom documents:






—


the word ‘Treaty’ should not be understood in different contexts regarding each piece of EU legislation, but that it should have a uniform meaning.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful:






—


access to the required documents does not endanger the interest of nuclear safety because the request for information did not affect nuclear safety issues;










—


the defendant seriously breached its obligation stemming from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and applicable case law of the EU Court to give specific reasons for non-disclosure.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the reference by the defendant to the protection of commercial interest is flawed and fails to specify the general considerations on which it bases the presumption that disclosure of the required documents would undermine commercial interest:






—


the information withheld by the defendant as affecting commercial interest does not satisfy the criteria of commercial information and its age is not taken into account when deciding by the defendant upon the confirmatory application;










—


there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested data given that public interest is in the disclosure of nuclear information.










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43)
Case C-342/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01000201.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/2





Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)
(Case C-342/16 P)
(2017/C 095/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Novomatic AG (represented by: W. Mosing, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Granini France
By order of 6 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case F-30/16: Action brought on 17 June 2016 — ZZ and Others v EIB
Date: 2016-06-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification, interest, monthly pay, wage determination








C_2016296EN.01004601.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/46





Action brought on 17 June 2016 — ZZ and Others v EIB
(Case F-30/16)
(2016/C 296/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: L.-Y. Levi)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions contained in the pay slips for the month of April 2016, fixing the annual adjustment of salaries limited to 0,6 % for the year 2016 and the annulment of subsequent pay slips, and, as far as necessary, the briefing note which the defendant sent to the applicants on 8 March 2016, and an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of April 2016, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0,6 % for the year 2016, and, therefore the annulment of the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips and, as far as necessary, the annulment of the briefing note which the defendant sent to the applicants on 8 March 2016;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for material harm (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2016, that is, an increase of 2,3 % for the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 2.9 % for 2016 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2016; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points; and (iv) for damages due to the loss of purchasing power;










—


order the defendant to pay to each applicant EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.