do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8319 — CEFCI/JSC Kazmunaigaz/Rompetrol France) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2017003EN.01000202.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8319 — CEFCI/JSC Kazmunaigaz/Rompetrol France)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 3/03)
On 23 December 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 32016M8319. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8233 — Rockaway E-Commerce/EC Investments/Bonak/Sully Systems) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, retail trade








C_2017003EN.01000201.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8233 — Rockaway E-Commerce/EC Investments/Bonak/Sully Systems)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 3/02)
On 21 December 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 32016M8233. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2017 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017003EN.01000401.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/4





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2017
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
(2017/C 3/05)
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basispoints has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basispoints to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 372, 11.10.2016, p. 5.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.1.2017


…



-0,07 




-0,07 




0,76 




-0,07 




0,45 




-0,07 




0,16 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,05 




0,75 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,83 




-0,07 




1,10 




-0,36 




-0,07 




-0,07 




0,78
Case T-11/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017095EN.01001301.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/13





Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council
(Case T-11/17)
(2017/C 095/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RK (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




as a result,






—


annul the undated decision of the Council, adopted on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2016;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay damages by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, as implemented by the Staff Note No 71/15 of the Council, and factual and legal inaccuracies and irregularities vitiating the contested decisions;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, and infringement of the rights of the defence.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials, and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017003EN.01000301.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 January 2017
(2017/C 3/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0501 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,38 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4341 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85440 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5341 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0704 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0215 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3680 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5065 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8020 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4401 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3966 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1431 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5087 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5076 




KRW


South Korean won


1 250,78 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3244 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2311 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5770 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 029,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7097 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,993 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,4526 




THB


Thai baht


37,599 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3742 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,3446 




INR


Indian rupee


71,3394 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-5/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2017 — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, banking, debt, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2017078EN.01001501.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2017 — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited
(Case C-5/17)
(2017/C 078/20)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: DPAS Limited

Questions referred

In the light of Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (the Principal VAT Directive) and the interpretations of that provision given by the Court of Justice in AXA, Bookit II and NEC, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) respectfully refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:






(1)


Is a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, consisting of directing, pursuant to a direct debit mandate, that money is taken by direct debit from a patient’s bank account and passed by the taxpayer, after deduction of the taxpayer’s remuneration, to the patient’s dentist and insurance provider, an exempt supply of transfer or payment services within Article 135(1)(d) of the Principal VAT Directive?
In particular, do the decisions in Bookit II and NEC lead to the conclusion that the exemption from VAT in Article 135(1)(d) is not applicable to a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, which does not involve the taxpayer itself debiting or crediting any accounts over which it has control but which, where a transfer of funds results, is essential to that transfer? Or does the decision in AXA lead to the contrary conclusion?










(2)


What are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case falls within the scope of ‘debt collection’ within Article 135(1)(d)? In particular, if (as the Court decided in AXA in relation to the same or a very similar service) such a service would constitute debt collection if provided to the person to whom the payment is due (i.e. the dentists in the present case and in AXA), does that service also constitute debt collection if such a service is provided to the person from whom the payment is due (i.e. the patients in the present case)?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).
Case T-15/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01004301.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/43





Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)
(Case T-15/17)
(2017/C 063/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘YAMAS’ — Application for registration No 13 645 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 532/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, as well as the decision given by the Opposition Division which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;










—


reject the opposition and allow that the registration of the trade mark applied for be registered;










—


order the EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8316 — Advent/Brammer) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cycle and motorcycle industry, economic concentration, general mechanical engineering, merger control, motor vehicle industry, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2017003EN.01000701.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8316 — Advent/Brammer)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 3/08)






1.


On 21 December 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 Advent International Cooperation (‘Advent’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Brammer plc (‘Brammer’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for undertaking Advent: global private equity investor with holdings in various sectors,
—   for undertaking Brammer: distribution of industrial products used for maintenance, repair and overhaul.










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.8316 — Advent/Brammer, 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.