do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7917 — Boehringer Ingelheim/Sanofi Animal Health Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2016349EN.01000601.xml










24.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7917 — Boehringer Ingelheim/Sanofi Animal Health Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 349/03)






1.


On 19 September 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Boehringer Ingelheim group (BI, Germany), through its wholly owned subsidiary Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of Sanofi's animal health business (Merial, France), by way of purchase of shares and assets. The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 8 June 2016, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 22 July 2016.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for BI: active worldwide in the development, production, distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals, including prescription products, consumer healthcare products, biopharmaceuticals and animal health products.
—   for Merial: producer of a wide range of animal pharmaceutical products and vaccines worldwide.










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.7917 — Boehringer Ingelheim/Sanofi Animal Health Business, 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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016349EN.01000501.xml










24.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 September 2016
(2016/C 349/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1214 




JPY


Japanese yen


113,02 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4552 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86435 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5820 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0887 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1028 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022 




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,51 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2869 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4475 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3059 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4685 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4625 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6979 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5435 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5231 




KRW


South Korean won


1 235,78 




ZAR


South African rand


15,2370 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4797 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5005 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 663,99 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6028 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,881 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,2201 




THB


Thai baht


38,834 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5931 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0086 




INR


Indian rupee


74,7110 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-689/16: Action brought on 24 September 2016 — PL v Commission
Date: 2016-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, damages, indemnification, legality, reassignment, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016441EN.01002501.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/25






Action brought on 24 September 2016 — PL v Commission
(Case T-689/16)
(2016/C 441/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the confirmatory decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit DG HR.B4 ‘Career and performance management’ not to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 by adopting a decision, already implemented for more than 3 years, to reassign the applicant, in the interest of the service, from the European Union Delegation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (East Jerusalem) to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE) in Brussels with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2013;










—


annul the implicit decision of 20 August 2015 to reject the applicant’s request, made through his legal counsel, to be informed of the measures taken by the Commission to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 250 000 as compensation for the material and non-material harm which he has suffered;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea: infringement of Article 266 TFEU in so far as the contested decisions are not compatible with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13 in relation to its grounds which form the necessary support for the operative part, in the sense that they are indispensable for determining the exact meaning of the ruling in the operative part.






—


The applicant considers that Article 266 TFEU requires the Commission to ensure that any act replacing the annulled act is not tainted by the same irregularities as those identified in the judgment ordering annulment, which is the position in the present case.














2.


Second plea: abuse of procedure in so far as the contested decisions do not constitute a proper, bona fide and fair implementation of the CST’s judgment ordering annulment and were merely adopted with the sole aim of conferring a veneer of legality on a decision which, although annulled, had already been implemented for more than three years.










3.


Third plea: breach of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.