do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8177 — AMC UK/Odeon and UCI Cinemas) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, film industry, leisure, merger control








C_2016394EN.01000701.xml










26.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8177 — AMC UK/Odeon and UCI Cinemas)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 394/06)






1.


On 19 October 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 AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (United States of America) belonging to the Dalian Wanda Group (People’s Republic of China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Odeon and UCI Cinemas (United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for AMC: AMC is active in cinema exhibition services in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. It operates 386 cinemas, the majority of which are located in the USA and only 1 of which is located in Europe. It also has interests in cinema screen advertising and film distribution activities in the USA, though does not itself engage in these businesses directly,
—   for Odeon and UCI Cinemas: Odeon and UCI Cinemas operates 242 cinemas under the Odeon, UCI, UCI Kinowelt and Cinesa brands in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Austria. Odeon also has a number of joint ventures in areas ancillary to film exhibition services, including a cinema screen advertising company and a film distribution joint venture both based in the United Kingdom and an online ticket sales platform in Germany. Odeon has a limited interest in cinema exhibition services in China.










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 M.8177 — AMC UK/Odeon and UCI Cinemas, 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.
Case T-153/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the earlier measures by a judgment of the General Court — New measures including the names of the applicants on the lists — Action for annulment — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Content of the application — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to property — Freedom to conduct business)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right of establishment, trade restriction








C_2016462EN.01001701.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/17





Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
(Case T-153/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the earlier measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the names of the applicants on the lists - Action for annulment - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Content of the application - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to property - Freedom to conduct business))
(2016/C 462/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as agents)

Re:

Action brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117/CFSP of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), in that the names of the applicants have been included on the list of persons and bodies subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mohamed Hamcho and Hamcho International to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings at first instance and in the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case C-269/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 — Material scope — Deductions from statutory old-age pensions and all other supplementary benefits — Article 13 — Determination of the applicable legislation — Residence in another Member State)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health insurance, residence, supplementary pension








C_2017006EN.01001701.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/17





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad
(Case C-269/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4 - Material scope - Deductions from statutory old-age pensions and all other supplementary benefits - Article 13 - Determination of the applicable legislation - Residence in another Member State))
(2017/C 006/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Defendant: Willem Hoogstad

Intervener: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, precludes a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes levies of contributions that have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of that regulation on payments made under supplementary pension schemes even though the beneficiary of that supplementary pension scheme does not reside in that Member State and is subject, in accordance with Article 13(2)(f) of that regulation, to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he resides.


(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case C-590/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Production of aluminium — Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Termination of the contract — Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract — Decision declaring the aid unlawful — Article 108(3) TFEU — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Distinction)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aluminium, control of State aid, metallurgical industry, price of energy, reduced price, terms for aid








C_2017006EN.01000701.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/7





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission
(Case C-590/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Production of aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Distinction))
(2017/C 006/08)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, and by E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and A. Oikonomou, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, dikigoroi)
European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2014 in Alouminion v Commission (T-542/11, EU:T:2014:859);










2.


Refers Case T-542/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-167/16: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Poland v Commission
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal plague, epidemic, live animal, principle of proportionality, regions of Poland, swine, trade restriction, veterinary inspection








C_2017038EN.01005402.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/54





Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-167/16) (1)

(2017/C 038/71)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016394EN.01000501.xml










26.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 October 2016
(2016/C 394/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0872 




JPY


Japanese yen


113,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4387 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88998 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7180 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0848 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9868 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3042 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4901 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3407 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4229 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4478 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4331 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5208 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5133 




KRW


South Korean won


1 230,63 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0403 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3685 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5030 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 140,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5142 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,418 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,4963 




THB


Thai baht


37,998 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3872 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,1024 




INR


Indian rupee


72,6370 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-478/16: Action brought on 26 October 2016 — OP v Commission
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, executive agency, financial aid, scientific research








C_2016475EN.01001701.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/17





Action brought on 26 October 2016 — OP v Commission
(Case T-478/16)
(2016/C 475/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: OP (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Conrad, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s implicit and explicit rejection decisions of 16 and 30 September 2016 respectively (Ref.: Ares (2016) 5716994), relating to the applicant’s administrative complaint of 17 April 2016 under Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 seeking a review of the legality of the decision of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council of 18 March 2016 (Ref.: Ares (2016) 1371979), received by the applicant on 28 April 2016, stating that the applicant’s grant application of 17 November 2015 (application number 716017 — QUASIMODO) within the Framework Programme ‘Horizon 2020’, ERC Work Programme 2016 (ERC Starting Grant) had been considered unsuitable and had been rejected;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to a review by the defendant of the legality of the actions of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council, since the defendant failed to reply to the applicant’s administrative complaint within the deadline laid down by the third subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the applicant’s grant application was unlawful.
The applicant submits that the rejection of her administrative complaint was also unlawful because the decision by the Executive Agency of the European Research Council rejecting her grant application was itself unlawful.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).
Case C-575/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ZARA — Transport services — Genuine use — Revocation proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Distortion of evidence — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01000602.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/6





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-575/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Word mark ZARA - Transport services - Genuine use - Revocation proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Distortion of evidence - Rights of the defence))
(2017/C 063/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case C-211/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Orange, formerly France Télécom v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Aid granted by the French Republic to France Télécom — Reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom — Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Definition of aid — Definition of economic advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Distortion of the facts — No statement of reasons — Substitution of grounds)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, France, State aid, civil servant, control of State aid, pension scheme, restriction on competition, telecommunications industry








C_2017006EN.01001402.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/14





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Orange, formerly France Télécom v European Commission
(Case C-211/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid granted by the French Republic to France Télécom - Reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Definition of aid - Definition of economic advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Distortion of the facts - No statement of reasons - Substitution of grounds))
(2017/C 006/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Orange to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Case C-195/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — SCI Senior Home, in administration v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 5 — Notion of ‘third parties’ rights in rem’ — Public charge against immovable property to ensure payment of real property tax)
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: easement, enforcement of ruling, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, property tax








C_2017006EN.01001401.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/14





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — SCI Senior Home, in administration v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG
(Case C-195/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 5 - Notion of ‘third parties’ rights in rem’ - Public charge against immovable property to ensure payment of real property tax))
(2017/C 006/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SCI Senior Home, in administration

Defendants: Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that security created by virtue of a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the real property of a person owing real property taxes is, by operation of law, to be subject to a public charge and that property owner must accept enforcement of the decision recording that tax debt against that property, constitutes a ‘right in rem’ for the purposes of that article.


(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 October 2016 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (09389/1/2016 — C8-0360/2016 — 2012/0340(COD))
Date: 2016-10-26
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Culture and Education, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on Regional Development, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, Internet site, access to information, computer applications, digital technology, facilities for people with disabilities, harmonisation of standards, mobile phone, public institution, software








C_2018215EN.01032001.xml










19.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/320





P8_TA(2016)0414
Accessibility of websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies ***II
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 October 2016 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (09389/1/2016 — C8-0360/2016 — 2012/0340(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)
(2018/C 215/60)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council position at first reading (09389/1/2016 — C8-0360/2016),










—


having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 22 May 2013 (1),










—


after consulting the Committee of the Regions,










—


having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0721),










—


having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Rule 76 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0269/2016),












1.


Approves the Council position at first reading;












2.


Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;












3.


Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;












4.


Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;












5.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 116.

(2)  Texts adopted of 26.2.2014, P7_TA(2014)0158.