do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8131 — Tele2 Sverige/TDC Sverige) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2016330EN.01000501.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8131 — Tele2 Sverige/TDC Sverige)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 330/06)






1.


On 2 September 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Tele2 Sverige AB (‘Tele2’, Sweden), controlled by Kinnevik (Sweden), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of TDC Sverige AB (‘TDC Sverige’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Tele2 is a Swedish telecommunications provider which offers mobile (voice and data) services, fixed internet, fixed telephony, data communication services, PBXs and related services to residential, business and public sector customers,










—


Kinnevik is a Swedish investment company with equity interests in the sectors of telecommunications, e-commerce, entertainment and financial services,










—


TDC Sverige is a Swedish telecommunications provider which offers mobile (voice and data) services, fixed internet, fixed telephony, data communication services, PBXs and related services, IT services, data centre solutions, and consultancy services to business customers.














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.8131 — Tele2 Sverige/TDC Sverige, 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-309/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Real Express SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Blue and red figurative mark containing the word element ‘real’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the black and white national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Real’ and ‘Real mark’ — Rejection of the opposition)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, logistics, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01000802.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/8






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Real Express SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office, MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-309/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Blue and red figurative mark containing the word element ‘real’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the black and white national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Real’ and ‘Real mark’ - Rejection of the opposition))
(2016/C 454/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Real Express SRL (represented by: C. Anitoae, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and D. Hanf, Agents), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Real Express SRL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case C-160/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Internet — Hyperlinks giving access to protected works, made accessible on another website without the rightholder’s consent — Works not yet published by the rightholder — Posting of such links for a profit)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, computer piracy, copyright, hypertext, information society








C_2016402EN.01000701.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/7





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker
(Case C-160/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet - Hyperlinks giving access to protected works, made accessible on another website without the rightholder’s consent - Works not yet published by the rightholder - Posting of such links for a profit))
(2016/C 402/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GS Media BV

Defendants: Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed.


(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Case T-472/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings — Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Errors of law and of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Legal certainty — Fines)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, fine, generic drug, parent company, patent, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2016402EN.01002601.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/26





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission
(Case T-472/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Errors of law and of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Fines))
(2016/C 402/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark) and Lundbeck Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, and T. Kuhn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi and C. Vollrath, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi, C. Vollrath and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Healy, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs;










3.


Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Joined Cases C-91/16 and C-120/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Default interest rate — Application of the remunerative interest rate — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interest, unfair terms of contract








C_2016454EN.01001402.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/14






Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)
(Joined Cases C-91/16 and C-120/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Default interest rate - Application of the remunerative interest rate - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/27)
Language of the cases: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Caixabank SA (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-120/16)

Defendants: Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)

Operative part of the order

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Court of First Instance No 60, Madrid, Spain), by decisions of 8 February 2016 (Case C-91/16) and of 18 February 2016 (Case C-120/16), are manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8099 — Nissan/Mitsubishi) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, wholesale trade








C_2016330EN.01000401.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8099 — Nissan/Mitsubishi)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 330/05)






1.


On 31 August 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd (‘Nissan’, Japan), controlled by Renault (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (‘MMC’, Japan) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Nissan is a Japanese multinational stock corporation headquartered in Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Japan, which manufactures and sells automobiles. Nissan is an affiliate of Renault, a French multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Boulogne-Billancourt, France,










—


MMC is a Japanese multinational stock corporation headquartered in Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, which manufactures and sells automobiles.














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 M.8099 — Nissan/Mitsubishi, 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 T-469/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Generics (UK) v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Error of law — Error of assessment — Rights of defence — Fines)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, fine, generic drug, market access, patent, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2016383EN.01001101.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/11





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Generics (UK) v Commission
(Case T-469/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Error of law - Error of assessment - Rights of defence - Fines))
(2016/C 383/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd (Potters Bar, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and T. Goetz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck), and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Case T-471/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Duration of the Commission’s investigation — Rights of the defence — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, fine, generic drug, market access, patent, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2016392EN.01002202.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/22





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission
(Case T-471/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis))
(2016/C 392/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), and Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Case T-640/16: Action brought on 8 September 2016 — GEA Group v Commission
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, equal treatment, heating, limitation of legal proceedings, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2016392EN.01004901.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/49





Action brought on 8 September 2016 — GEA Group v Commission
(Case T-640/16)
(2016/C 392/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2016, C(2016)3920, amending decision C(2009)8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA (AT.38589 — Heat Stabilisers);










—


in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine and set a new date for due payment and interest (after adoption of the contested decision), and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





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 European Commission violated Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, by adopting the contested decision although the limitation period had elapsed.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266(1) TFUE and the applicant’s right of defence as the applicant was not granted the opportunity to develop its views orally.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 as it did not apply the 10 % cap to the applicant, and as it applied the cap to another infringer to the detriment of the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment as it held the applicant solely liable for a conduct for which other infringers were found to be responsible while the applicant’s liability is only derivative, and because it distributed the extra burden arising from the other infringer’s reduced liability exclusively to the detriment of the applicant.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires by setting retroactively a deadline for payment for a date at which no valid legal basis for payment existed, and that the Commission failed to state reasons according to Article 296(2) TFUE as it did not explain for what reasons it deviates from its practice.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8163 — AC/EYSA/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hire purchase, merger control, rental business, vehicle rental








C_2016330EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8163 — AC/EYSA/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 330/01)
On 1 September 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 32016M8163. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.