do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8256 — NEC Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/brees Corporation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, information technology industry, merger control








C_2016421EN.01000801.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8256 — NEC Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/brees Corporation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 421/07)






1.


On 8 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which NEC Corporation, ultimate parent company of the NEC Group (‘NEC’, Japan) and the Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (‘SMBC’, Japan) belonging to the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of brees Corporation (‘brees’, Japan), a full-function joint venture, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for NEC: the provision of equipment and IT solutions such as mobile terminals, computer equipment, software products, networking and sensing technologies to the public and private sectors, globally;
—   for SMBC: the provision of commercial financial services such as trade finance, syndicated loans, project finanance, currency clearing, cash management services and custody and securities services, globally;
—   for brees: the provision of services related to payments in convenience stores using mobile barcodes, exclusively active in Japan.










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 the 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.8256 — NEC Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/brees Corporation, 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-800/16: Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Mayekawa Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, fiscal policy, multinational enterprise, principle of proportionality, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2017022EN.01004401.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/44





Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Mayekawa Europe v Commission
(Case T-800/16)
(2017/C 022/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mayekawa Europe NV/SA (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium (1);










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; 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 four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme as granting a selective advantage.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations and of the proportionality principle, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8250 — Ardian/Weber Automotive) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2016421EN.01000101.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8250 — Ardian/Weber Automotive)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 421/01)
On 10 November 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 32016M8250. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-301/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Articles 2 and 3 — Rights of reproduction and communication to the public — Scope — ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published — National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes — Legal presumption of the authors’ consent — Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed)
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, book trade, copyright, digitisation, literary and artistic property, national law, reprography








C_2017014EN.01001001.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/10






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication
(Case C-301/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Articles 2 and 3 - Rights of reproduction and communication to the public - Scope - ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published - National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes - Legal presumption of the authors’ consent - Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed))
(2017/C 014/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

Intervening parties: Société française des intérêts des auteurs de l’écrit (SOFIA), Joëlle Wintrebert and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) and 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 precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that gives an approved collecting society the right to authorise the reproduction and communication to the public in digital form of ‘out-of-print’ books, namely, books published in France before 1 January 2001 which are no longer commercially distributed by a publisher and are not currently published in print or in digital form, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that that legislation lays down.


(1)  
            OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8202 — Nidec/Emerson Electric (Leroy-Somer and Control Techniques divisions)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control








C_2016421EN.01000701.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8202 — Nidec/Emerson Electric (Leroy-Somer and Control Techniques divisions))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 421/06)






1.


On 8 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Nidec Corporation (‘Nidec’) (Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of Emerson Electric Co.’s (‘Emerson’) motors, drives and electric power generation businesses (United States of America) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Nidec: manufacture and sale of motors, machinery, electronic and optical components and other products;
—   for Emerson’s motors, drives and electric power generation businesses: manufacture and sale of motors, drives, and electric power generation solutions conducted under the brand names Leroy-Somer Electric Power Generation, Leroy-Somer Motors & Drives, Control Techniques and Kato Engineering.










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 the 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.8202 — Nidec/Emerson Electric (Leroy-Somer and Control Techniques divisions), 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 C-582/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Consalvo
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cessation of trading, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, game of chance, national law, right of establishment, tendering, trade licence, trade restriction, usufruct








C_2017195EN.01000801.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Consalvo
(Case C-582/16)
(2017/C 195/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Salerno

Party to the main proceedings

Alfonso Consalvo
By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:






1.


Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.










2.


Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.
Case C-577/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, air quality, approximation of laws, greenhouse gas, organic chemical, polymer, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2017063EN.01001202.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-577/16)
(2017/C 063/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in conjunction with Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the production of polymers and of the polymer polycarbonate in particular in installations with a production capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day falls within the activity defined therein as production of bulk organic chemicals by cracking, reforming, partial or full oxidation or by similar processes?










2.


If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, does the operator of such an installation have a claim to free allocation of emissions allowances arising from a direct application of the rules of Directive 2003/87/EC and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) if there can be no free allocation of emissions allowances under national law solely because the Member State in question did not include installations for the production of polymers in the scope of the national law implementing Directive 2003/87/EC and such installations do not take part in emissions trading for that reason alone?






(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7963 — ADM/Wilmar/Olenex JV) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fats, food industry, merger control








C_2016421EN.01000102.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7963 — ADM/Wilmar/Olenex JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 421/02)
On 8 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 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 32016M7963. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-2/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 9 — Postal services in the European Union — Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority — Scope)
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: co-financing, national law, postal service, provision of services, services of general interest, single market, universal service








C_2017014EN.01000401.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
(Case C-2/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 9 - Postal services in the European Union - Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority - Scope))
(2017/C 014/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DHL Express (Austria) GmbH

Defendant: Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2), second subparagraph, fourth indent, of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on all postal service providers, including those which do not provide postal services falling within the scope of the universal service, the obligation to contribute to the financing of the national regulatory authorities responsible for that sector.


(1)  
            OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case T-799/16: Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI)
Date: 2016-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic component, electronic equipment, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01004301.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/43





Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI)
(Case T-799/16)
(2017/C 022/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dudingen Develops, SL (Numancia de la Sagra, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark ‘MI’ — EU trade mark application No 13 498 423

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 337/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in part, namely in so far as it held that there was no likelihood of confusion as regards:






—


‘Electrical cables; Sheaths for electric cables; Cable covers [conduits]; Electrical power extension cords; Enamelled electric wires; Cable locators; Adapter cables (Electric -); Insulated electrical cables; Resistance wires; Thermocouple wires; Metallic cables [electric]; Cable connectors; Measuring cables; Connection cables; Ducting for electric cables; Cable splices for electric cables; Mounting cords [electrical]; Conduit for electric cables; Cable channels (Electric -); Cable boxes (ElectriC -); Cable junctions for electric cables; Wire connectors [electricity}; Heat resistant electric wires; Connection blocks [electric cable]; Helmets for use in spotts; Tags for identifying electric cables; Connections for electric cables; Markers for electric wire; Mineral insulated electric cables; Male connectors for electrical cables; Flexible sheaths for electric cables; Electricity mains (Materials for -) [wires, cables]; Junction sleeves for electric cables; Junction boxes for electric wires; Joint boxes for housing cable joints; Apparatus, instruments and cables for electricity; Electrical power adaptors; Plug adaptors; Adapter connectors (Electric -); Adapters for connecting telephones to hearing aids; Travel adaptors for electric plugs’ in Class 9 and










—


‘Rucksacks; small rucksacks; bags for climbers’ in Class 18;














—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.