do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-623/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, local tax, property tax, tax exemption








C_2017038EN.01001701.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/17





Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
(Case C-623/16 P)
(2017/C 038/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, D. Grespan, F. Tomat, acting as agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;










—


declare the action at first instance inadmissible for the purpose of the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety;










—


order Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By a single plea in law, divided into three parts, the Commission claims that the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied, in that the General Court ruled that the applicant’s action at first instance was admissible on the basis of that provision. In particular, the General Court erred in law by finding that the contested act amounted to a regulatory act which was of direct concern to the applicant at first instance and did not entail implementing measures in respect of the applicant itself.
Case C-282/16: Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl v Heta Asset Resolution AG
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, company in difficulties, credit, credit institution, debt, financial control, free movement of capital, investment company, liquidation








C_2017086EN.01002202.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/22





Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl v Heta Asset Resolution AG
(Case C-282/16) (1)

(2017/C 086/28)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, office supplies, retail trade








C_2016437EN.01000901.xml










25.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 437/06)






1.


On 18 November 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 AURELIUS Equity Opportunities SE & Co. KGaA (‘Aurelius’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Office Depot (Netherlands) C.V. (‘Office Depot Europe Business’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Aurelius: a private equity investor and multi-asset administrator, which acquires, restructures and eventually sells companies in special situations,
—   for Office Depot Europe Business: a provider of products, services, and solutions for the workplace throughout the European Economic Area. Office Depot Europe Business offers technology, office supplies, print and document services, business services, facilities products, furniture, and school supplies.










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.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands), 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016437EN.01000101.xml










25.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 November 2016
(2016/C 437/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0548 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4373 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84800 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7658 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0727 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0858 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,034 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,46 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4239 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5100 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6136 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4274 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4232 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1819 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5096 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5107 




KRW


South Korean won


1 246,47 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0085 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2988 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5303 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 292,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7043 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,723 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,0798 




THB


Thai baht


37,635 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5909 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8850 




INR


Indian rupee


72,5245 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-598/15: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2016 — Stichting Accolade v Commission (State aid — Sale of land at prices allegedly below market price — Complaint made by a third party to the Commission — Decision declaring that the contested measure does not constitute aid — Procedure governing the preliminary examination stage under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 10(1), Article 13(1) and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 concerning allegedly unlawful individual aid — Action for annulment brought by a third party — Admissibility — Locus standi — Action designed to safeguard procedural rights — Action challenging the merits of the contested measure — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Friesland, Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, market prices, real property, sale








C_2017022EN.01003401.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/34





Order of the General Court of 25 November 2016 — Stichting Accolade v Commission
(Case T-598/15) (1)

((State aid - Sale of land at prices allegedly below market price - Complaint made by a third party to the Commission - Decision declaring that the contested measure does not constitute aid - Procedure governing the preliminary examination stage under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 10(1), Article 13(1) and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 concerning allegedly unlawful individual aid - Action for annulment brought by a third party - Admissibility - Locus standi - Action designed to safeguard procedural rights - Action challenging the merits of the contested measure - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 022/46)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, the Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4411 final of 30 June 2015 on State aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (alleged sale of land below market price by the municipality of Harlingen), by which the Commission decided that the sale of that land to Ludinga Vastgoed BV did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


Stichting Accolade shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Case T-832/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Celio International v Commission
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, fiscal policy, interest, multinational enterprise, principle of proportionality, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2017030EN.01005201.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/52





Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Celio International v Commission
(Case T-832/16)
(2017/C 030/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Celio International SA (Brussels, 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’s 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 manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the decision alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


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










3.


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










4.


Fourth plea in law, in the alternative alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU, 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 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)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, postal service








C_2016437EN.01001001.xml










25.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 437/07)






1.


On 14 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Deutsche Post AG, trading as Deutsche Post DHL Group (‘DPDHL’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of UK Mail Group plc and its subsidiaries (‘UK Mail’, United Kingdom) by way of a public bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for DPDHL: DPDHL is a global mail and logistics company headquartered in Germany. The group operates under two brands (Deutsche Post and DHL) and delivers services to customers in over 220 countries and territories worldwide. The postal division of DPDHL, Deutsche Post, provides the national postal service in Germany. DHL provides a comprehensive range of international express, freight transportation, e-commerce and supply chain management services.
—   for UK Mail: United Kingdom-based courier company with a nationwide network of more than 50 sites and 2 400 vehicles. It offers parcel and mail delivery solutions both locally and 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. 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.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail, 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-624/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-219/13, Ferracci v Commission
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, church, control of State aid, local tax, property tax, sports body, tax exemption








C_2017038EN.01001702.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/17





Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-219/13, Ferracci v Commission
(Case C-624/16 P)
(2017/C 038/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, D. Grespan, F. Tomat, acting as agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;










—


declare the action at first instance inadmissible under the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety;










—


order Mr Ferracci to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By a single plea in law, divided into three parts, the Commission claims that the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied in that the General Court ruled that the action of the applicant at first instance was admissible on the basis of that provision. In particular, the General Court erred in law by finding that the contested act amounted to a regulatory act which was of direct concern to the applicant at first instance and did not entail implementing measures in respect of the applicant himself.
Case T-828/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — CRDO Torta del Casar v EUIPO — CRDOP ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01005401.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/54





Action brought on 25 November 2016 — CRDO Torta del Casar v EUIPO — CRDOP ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)
(Case T-828/16)
(2017/C 022/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Torta del Casar (Casar de Cáceres, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’ (Castuera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA’ — Application for registration No 10 486 447

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2573/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


vary the contested decision, finding that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, are met;










—


alternatively, annul the contested decision; and










—


in any event, order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal).





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of the same regulation, and with reference, lastly, to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.










—


Infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, with reference to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.










—


Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty and sound administration.
Case T-829/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament
Date: 2016-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European party, Schengen Agreement, governance, party financing, principle of legal certainty, public awareness campaign








C_2017022EN.01005501.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/55





Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament
(Case T-829/16)
(2017/C 022/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision D106185 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016, notified by Mr [X] on 26 September 2016, declaring ineligible the expenditure resulting from the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign;










—


order the Bureau of the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from the fact that neither the material in the case file nor the objections of the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (‘MENL’) were brought to the attention of the Bureau of the European Parliament.










2.


Second plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the concept of ‘indirect funding’ of national parties by European parties is an imprecise concept that is contrary to all legal certainty.










3.


Third plea, alleging that the logo featuring on the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign (‘the logo at issue’) conveys on national territories an exclusively European campaign, contrary to the view taken by the defendant in adopting the decision which the present action seeks to have annulled. In support of this plea, the applicant primarily puts forward three arguments, namely:






—


the campaign was orchestrated by MENL alone, without agreement or involvement of the national parties;










—


the campaign and the poster concern a problem of European scope which is that of the Schengen agreements;










—


the logo at issue is therefore not the logo of the national parties but the logo of the delegations of those parties within the European Parliament.














4.


Fourth plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the logo at issue is of much smaller size than MENL’s logo. However, the case-law and the texts dealing with the question provide for sanctions only in respect of national logos of a size greater than or equal to that of the European logos.