do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, publishing








C_2016432EN.01001001.xml










23.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 432/07)






1.


On 16 November 2016, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Planeta Corporation (‘Gruppo Planeta’, Spain), through its subsidiary Editorial Planeta SA (‘Editorial Planeta’, Spain), and Gruppo De Agostini SpA (‘Gruppo De Agostini’, Italy), through its subsidiary De Agostini Libri SpA (‘DeA Libri’, Italy), acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of DeA Planeta Libri srl (‘DeA Planeta Libri’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares and transfer of a business branch.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Gruppo De Agostini: publishing, media and communications, games and services and financial sectors worldwide,
—   DeA Libri: publishing sector (miscellaneous) in Italy,
—   Gruppo Planeta: publishing, media, e-commerce and training sectors worldwide,
—   Editorial Planeta: publishing sectors (miscellaneous),
—   DeA Planeta Libri: publishing sector (miscellaneous) in Italy.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration 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 observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of publication of this notification. 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.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV, 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-595/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Emmea Srl and Commercial Hub Srl v Comune di Siracusa and Others
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, competition policy, freedom to provide services, local legislation, right of establishment, trade licence








C_2017239EN.01001901.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Emmea Srl and Commercial Hub Srl v Comune di Siracusa and Others
(Case C-595/16)
(2017/C 239/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Emmea Srl and Commercial Hub Srl

Defendants: Comune di Siracusa, Assessorato delle Attività Produttive per la Regione Siciliana, Libera Consorzio Comunale (formerly Provincia) di Siracusa, and Camera di Commercio di Siracusa
By order of 27 April 2017, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia, made by order of 20 October 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.
Case C-597/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, offence, penalty








C_2017063EN.01001501.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca
(Case C-597/16)
(2017/C 063/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Respondent: Antonio Zecca

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, it precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?










2.


In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must a national court take into account the thresholds for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)







(1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).
Case C-592/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v État belge
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: balance sheet, closing of accounts, financial year, private limited company, reserves, share








C_2017038EN.01001201.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v État belge
(Case C-592/16)
(2017/C 038/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred

‘Is the fact that a company issuing a share option may record as income the purchase price of that option in the course of the financial year in which that option is taken up or at the end of its period of validity, in order to take into account the risk borne by the option issuer which results from the commitment he makes, [rather than] in the course of the tax year in which the option is purchased and its final price set — the risk borne by the issuer being valued separately by the recording of a provision — compatible with the accounting rules concerning balance sheets laid down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11), according to which:






—


the annual accounts are to give a true and fair view of the company's assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss (Article 2(3) of the Directive);










—


provisions for liabilities and charges are intended to cover losses or debts the nature of which is clearly defined and which at the date of the balance sheet are either likely to be incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as to amount or as to the date on which they will arise (Article 20(1) of the Directive);










—


the principle of prudence must in all circumstances be assessed, and in particular:






—


only profits made at the balance sheet date may be included;










—


account must be taken of all foreseeable liabilities and potential losses arising in the course of the financial year concerned or of a previous one, even if such liabilities or losses become apparent only between the date of the balance sheet and the date on which it is drawn up (Article 31(1) (c), (aa) and (bb) of the Directive);














—


account must be taken of income and charges relating to the financial year, irrespective of the date of receipt or payment of such income or charges (Article 31(1)(d) of the Directive);










—


the components of asset and liability items are to be valued separately (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive);




…?’
Case C-177/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer information and protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Transitional measures — Article 28(2) — Products bearing trade marks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 — ‘Bach flower’ remedies — European Union mark RESCUE — Products marketed as medicinal products before 1 January 2005 and as foodstuffs after that date)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark








C_2017030EN.01000701.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd
(Case C-177/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer information and protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Transitional measures - Article 28(2) - Products bearing trade marks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 - ‘Bach flower’ remedies - European Union mark RESCUE - Products marketed as medicinal products before 1 January 2005 and as foodstuffs after that date))
(2017/C 030/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nelsons GmbH

Defendants: Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2), first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies in the situation in which a foodstuff bearing a trade mark or brand name was, before 1 January 2005, marketed as a medicinal product and then, although having the same physical characteristics and bearing the same trade mark or brand name, as a foodstuff after that date.


(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Case C-593/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, judicial proceedings, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2017104EN.01002402.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky
(Case C-593/16)
(2017/C 104/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Defendant: Alexander Holiczky
By order of 7 February 2017, this case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.
Case T-328/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — FK (*) v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Restriction of the duration of the contract renewal — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract




C_2017014EN.01003002.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/30






Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — FK (*1) v Commission
(Case T-328/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Renewal of contract - Restriction of the duration of the contract renewal - Rights of the defence))
(2017/C 014/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: FK (*1)


Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and T. Bohr, and subsequently by: G. Berscheid and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, FK (*1) v Commission (F-87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, FK (*1) v Commission (F-87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31) insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the first and third pleas in law seeking annulment raised at first instance and the claim for damages;










2.


Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission before the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 November 2011, insofar as it restricts the duration of the extension of FK (*1)’ temporary contract to 31 March 2012;










4.


Refers the action back to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal for a ruling on the claims for damages put forward by FK (*1);










5.


Reserves the costs.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
            OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case C-314/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Article 4(1) and (3) — Secondary treatment or equivalent treatment)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: estuary, freshwater, industrial pollution, pollution control measures, urban area, wastewater, water pollutant, water pollution, water treatment








C_2017030EN.01000801.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/8





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-314/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Article 4(1) and (3) - Secondary treatment or equivalent treatment))
(2017/C 030/07)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: S. Ghiandoni, A. Daly and D. Colas)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to ensure secondary treatment or equivalent treatment for urban waste water from the agglomerations of Goyave, Bastelica, Morne-à-l’Eau, Aiguilles-Château-Ville Vieille, Borgo-Nord, Isola, Plombières-les-Bains, Saint-Céré, Vincey, Etueffont, Volx and Villeneuve, either for the entire amount of their discharges, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000, or for discharges into fresh water and estuaries, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-830/16: Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01005601.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/56





Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)
(Case T-830/16)
(2017/C 022/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PLOMBIR’

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1812/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8217 — CPPIB/Hammerson/Grand Central) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, real estate business








C_2016432EN.01000101.xml










23.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8217 — CPPIB/Hammerson/Grand Central)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 432/01)
On 17 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 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 32016M8217. 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.8229 — Hammerson/Irish Life/Ilac Shopping Centre) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2016432EN.01000901.xml










23.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8229 — Hammerson/Irish Life/Ilac Shopping Centre)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 432/06)






1.


On 15 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Hammerson plc of the United Kingdom and Irish Life Assurance plc of Ireland acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Ilac Shopping Centre (‘Ilac’, Ireland) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Hammerson: developing, owning and managing of shopping centres and retail parks primarily in the United Kingdom and France.
—   For Irish Life: providing protection, pensions and savings products to clients across retail, corporate and investment management businesses. Irish Life is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Great-West Lifeco of Canada, an international financial services holding company.
—   For ILAC: shopping centre situated in Dublin with a surface of 17 766 m2, which comprises a diverse mix of more than 80 retailers and catering units.










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.8229 — Hammerson/Irish Life/Ilac Shopping Centre, 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: 2016-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016432EN.01000201.xml










23.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 November 2016
(2016/C 432/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0617 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85423 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7973 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0730 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0563 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,044 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,89 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4205 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5117 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,5717 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4352 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4230 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2341 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5033 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5126 




KRW


South Korean won


1 246,90 




ZAR


South African rand


14,9242 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3100 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5300 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 254,41 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6938 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,878 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,9600 




THB


Thai baht


37,653 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5497 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5845 




INR


Indian rupee


72,5090 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.