do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-210/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NM against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-257/16: NM v European Council
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, agreement (EU), aid to refugees, jurisdiction, legal expenses, migration, right of asylum








C_2017231EN.01001401.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/14





Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NM against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-257/16: NM v European Council
(Case C-210/17 P)
(2017/C 231/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: NM (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;










—


Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-257/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;










—


Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Failure to give reasons;










2.


Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;










3.


Ignoring relevant factual issues;










4.


Failure to consider evidence that was before it;










5.


Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;










6.


Failure to make further relevant enquiries;










7.


Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;










8.


Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.
Case T-158/17 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 21 April 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of communication services via a metropolitan area network for the buildings and offices of the European Investment Bank Group in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, tendering, transmission network








C_2017195EN.01003001.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/30





Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 21 April 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB
(Case T-158/17 R)
((Interim measures - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of communication services via a metropolitan area network for the buildings and offices of the European Investment Bank Group in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
(2017/C 195/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Post Telecom SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, C. Saettel and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, P. Kiiver and C. Solazzo, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Belmessieri and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the EIB of 6 January 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for lot No 1 of call for tenders OP-1305, entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and of the decision to award that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 15 March 2017 in Case T-158/17 R is revoked.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-206/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, local legislation, public consultation, town and country planning, town planning








C_2017249EN.01001801.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen
(Case C-206/17)
(2017/C 249/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and Appellant on a point of law: Heinrich Denker

Defendant and Respondent on a point of law: Gemeinde Thedinghausen

Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (The Representative of the Federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

Question referred

Is Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which an irregularity in connection with public participation in the procedure for the preparation of a building development plan by way of municipal by-law is regarded as irrelevant if, notwithstanding notice of the complaints procedure having been given, no complaint regarding that irregularity is made to the municipality within one year of the publication of the plan, and the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on public participation apply to that plan?


(1)  
            OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.
Case C-207/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2017277EN.01002201.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
(Case C-207/17)
(2017/C 277/32)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rotho Blaas Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred







1.


Are Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, (2) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 519/2015 of 26 March 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (3) invalid/unlawful/incompatible with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 and the decision of the WTO DSB of 28 July 2011?










2.


If Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing an anti-dumping duty and related implementing regulations Nos 924/2012 and 519/2015 are declared invalid/unlawful/incompatible, does the repeal of the anti-dumping duties imposed on the basis of the contested measures produce legal effects from the time Implementing Regulation (EU) No 278/2016 (4) enters into force, or from the date on which the contested measure, that is to say, Basic Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, entered into force?






(1)  Council Regulation of 26 January 2009 (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation of 4 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation of 26 March 2015 (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 78).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016 L 52, p. 24).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8379 — SGID/Hellenic Republic/IPTO) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy grid, investment company, merger control








C_2017124EN.01000701.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8379 — SGID/Hellenic Republic/IPTO)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 124/06)






1.


On 10 April 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the State Grid International Development Limited (‘SGID’, China) controlled by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (‘Central SASAC’) and the Hellenic State, will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Independent Power Transmission Operator S.A. (‘IPTO’, Greece) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SGID is engaged in the investment and operation of regulated electricity transmission and distribution businesses outside of the People’s Republic of China, with assets and investments in Australia, Brazil, the Philippines, Portugal, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Italy,










—


the Hellenic Republic, through its subsidiary DES ADMIE, controls IPTO,










—


IPTO is the transmission system operator of the Hellenic Electricity Transmission System vested with its operation, management, exploitation, maintenance and development in order to ensure Greece’s electricity supply.














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.8379 — SGID/Hellenic Republic/IPTO, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8408 — Cinven/CPPIB/Travel Holdings Parent Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplementary pension, tourism








C_2017124EN.01000601.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8408 — Cinven/CPPIB/Travel Holdings Parent Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 124/05)






1.


On 10 April 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Fifth Cinven Fund, managed by Cinven Capital Management (V) General Partner Limited (‘Cinven’, United Kingdom) and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPPIB’, Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation jont control over of the Travel Holdings Parent Corporation and its subsidiaries (‘the Target’ or ‘Tourico’). The Target will subsequently be merged with Hotelbeds Travel Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hotelbeds US Holdco, Inc., the latter being jointly controlled by Cinven and CPPIB.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Cinven: private equity firm engaged in the provision of investment management and investment advisory services to a number of investment funds,
—   for CPPIB: investment management organisation created by an Act of Parliament to invest the funds of the Canada Pension Plan,
—   for the Target: travel-related brokerage company, headquartered in Orlando, Florida.










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.8408 — Cinven/CPPIB/Travel Holdings Parent 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8462 — KKR/CDPQ/USI Insurance Services) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control








C_2017124EN.01000801.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8462 — KKR/CDPQ/USI Insurance Services)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 124/07)






1.


On 11 April 2017, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking KKR & Co. L.P. (‘KKR’, United States) and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec (‘CDPQ’, Canada) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control over USI Insurance Services (‘USI’ or ‘Target’, United States).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


KKR is a global investment firm based in the United States which offers a range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and providing capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients.










—


CDPQ is an institutional investor active globally which manages funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans. CDPQ invests in major financial markets, private equity, infrastructure and real estate.










—


The Target is an insurance brokerage and consulting firm active in property and casualty, employee benefits, personal risk services, retirement, program and specialty solutions in the United States.














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.8462 — KKR/CDPQ/USI Insurance Services, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8428 — CVC/Żabka Polska) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, supermarket








C_2017124EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8428 — CVC/Żabka Polska)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 124/01)
On 7 April 2017, 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 32017M8428. 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.8442 — Ardian/Groupe Prosol) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2017124EN.01000102.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8442 — Ardian/Groupe Prosol)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 124/02)
On 10 April 2017, 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 French 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 32017M8442. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017124EN.01000201.xml










21.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 April 2017
(2017/C 124/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0745 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4381 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83920 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6203 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0701 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2120 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,907 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2588 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5405 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9067 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4278 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4494 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3550 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5301 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5009 




KRW


South Korean won


1 220,93 




ZAR


South African rand


14,1282 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3965 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4550 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 316,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7257 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,422 




RUB


Russian rouble


60,4465 




THB


Thai baht


36,931 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3770 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,1980 




INR


Indian rupee


69,4375 






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