do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/749 of 24 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the removal of Kazakhstan from the list of countries in Annex I thereto
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Kazakhstan, World Trade Organisation, common commercial policy, import (EU), import restriction, originating product, surveillance concerning imports








L_2017113EN.01001101.xml










29.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 113/11








            COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/749
of 24 February 2017
         
amending Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the removal of Kazakhstan from the list of countries in Annex I thereto


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In view of the accession of Kazakhstan to the World Trade Organisation, provisions should be made that Kazakhstan is removed from the scope of Regulation (EU) 2015/755.












(2)


Regulation (EU) 2015/755 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/755, the name ‘Kazakhstan’ is deleted.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 February 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33.
Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Pakistan, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, cotton, import (EU), originating product, textile product








C_2017168EN.01002101.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/21





Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
(Case C-100/17 P)
(2017/C 168/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


set aside the General Court’s judgment;










—


rule on the substance and annul the Regulation 397/2004 (1) or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment; and










—


order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the General Court proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant puts forward the following arguments:






—


The General Court committed an error in law by holding that the Appellant no longer has an interest in the second and third pleas in law. When deciding whether the Appellant has a continued interest in the case, the Court must take into account all evidence and information before it and look at the overall context. The errors in the Council’s dumping margin calculations are methodological and liable of recurring in the future.










—


The General Court committed an error of law in finding without properly addressing (in some cases, not addressing at all) the Appellant’s arguments that the EU industry’s shifting of production to the high-value segment of the EU bed linen market and the increasing EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related to the EU industry did not break the causal link between the alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. Furthermore, the findings of the General Court are based on distortions of the facts as presented in Regulation 397/2004 and incorrect legal characterisations of the facts.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004, L 66, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8270 — EDF/CDC/RTE) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, merger control, real estate business








C_2017060EN.01001001.xml










24.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8270 — EDF/CDC/RTE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 60/08)






1.


On 17 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC, France — Consignments and Loans Fund) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of the Réseau de transport d'électricité (RTE, France — Electricity transmission grid), which is currently under the sole control of Electricité de France (EDF, France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CDC is a French public institution active in the financing of public-interest investment projects and in shareholding acquisitions in the sectors opened up to competition, as well as in the management of private funds for which the public authorities wish to provide special protection,










—


EDF and its subsidiaries are mainly active in the electricity sector, especially in the production and wholesale sale, trading, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, both in France and abroad. The EDF Group is also active in the gas sector and the supply of energy services, both in France and abroad,










—


RTE, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of EDF, owns and manages the French public electricity transmission grid. RTE performs its duties under the supervision of the Commission de régulation de l’énergie (CRE, French Energy Regulatory Commission) and under the specific conditions of governance that guarantee its independent management within the EDF Group.














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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no 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.8270 — EDF/CDC/RTE, 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: 2017-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017060EN.01000401.xml










24.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 February 2017
(2017/C 60/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0573 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4335 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84628 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4975 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0663 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,8070 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,21 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3080 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5200 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,7757 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3691 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3868 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2037 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4637 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4926 




KRW


South Korean won


1 200,29 




ZAR


South African rand


13,6180 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2693 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4320 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 091,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7039 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,048 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,1931 




THB


Thai baht


36,990 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2412 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0150 




INR


Indian rupee


70,5465 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-97/17: Action brought on 24 February 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Yugozapaden (Bulgaria), bird, infringement of EU law, mountain, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life








C_2017121EN.01001702.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/17





Action brought on 24 February 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-97/17)
(2017/C 121/25)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


Declare that, in failing to classify the entirety of the Rila important bird area as a special protection area, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to classify the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC (1) on the conservation of wild birds, and accordingly has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of that directive;










2.


Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The case concerns the conservation of many endangered species of birds listed in Annex 1 to the Birds Directive and their habitats in the territory of the Rila mountain range in the south-west of Bulgaria. The Rila important bird area is one of the most significant places in both Bulgaria and the European Union for the conservation of over 130 species of nesting birds. 41 species are of European conservation concern, of which one is endangered worldwide.
Under Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive, the species listed in Annex I must be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. Furthermore, Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive provides that the Member States must classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of those species.
According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria should have classified the Rila important bird area as a special protection area in its entirety, but, to date, has not done so. The Commission provides evidence of the ornithological importance of the unclassified territories in the Rila important bird area.


(1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, rubber industry








C_2017060EN.01001101.xml










24.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 60/09)






1.


On 17 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Bain Capital Investors, L.L.C (‘Bain Capital’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Fintyre SpA (‘Fintyre’, Italy) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bain Capital: private equity investment firm,
—   for Fintyre: wholesale and retail supply of replacement tyres and ancillary services in Italy.










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.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre, 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-98/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
Date: 2017-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, exchange of information, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2017121EN.01001801.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/18





Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
(Case C-98/17 P)
(2017/C 121/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France (represented by: J.K. de Pree, advocaat, T.M. Snoep, advocaat, A.M. ter Haar, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul the decision in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and/or










—


annul or reduce the fines imposed on Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs in first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following main pleas in law and arguments:






—


The General Court erred in law by applying a wrong legal standard in establishing a restriction of competition by object.










—


In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by exceeding its unlimited jurisdiction.










—


In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by breaching its obligation to state reasons.










—


The General Court applied a clearly and manifestly incorrect assessment of the existing evidence in the file, resulting in a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence, in finding that the alleged common object finds support in other evidence.










—


The General Court erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard and by distorting the clear sense of the evidence by considering that Philips participated in a single and continuous infringement as a whole and, as such, could be held liable for it.










—


The General Court erred in law by misapplying the principle of proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction by rejecting Philips' plea that the gravity factor applied was disproportionate to the infringement and Philips' role therein.