do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8500 — Central/SIGNA Prime/JVCo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, parking area, real estate business, supermarket








C_2017205EN.01005901.xml










29.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/59





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8500 — Central/SIGNA Prime/JVCo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 205/10)






1.


On 20 June 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 Harng Central Department Store Ltd (‘Central’, Thailand) and Berlin, Tauentzienstraße 21-24 Beteiligung A Sàrl, a subsidiary of SIGNA Prime Selection AG (‘SIGNA’, Austria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Berlin, Passauer Straße 1-3 Immobilien GmbH & Co. KG (‘JVCo’, Germany), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Central: family owned holding company which is active through subsidiaries in merchandising, real estate, retailing, hospitality and restaurants activities primarily in Southeast Asia including Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam.
—   for SIGNA: engaged in real estate activities, i.e. purchase, rent, lease and management of land and buildings as well as project development. The associated group under the control of SIGNA Retail GmbH is active in retail trade and operates, in particular, the Karstadt department store chain.
—   for JVCo: owner of a real estate property plot in Berlin which is currently occupied by a multi storey car park.










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.8500 — Central/SIGNA Prime/JVCo, 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-388/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: provision of services, public contract, rail transport, services of general interest, transport company, transport network








C_2017293EN.01001902.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB
(Case C-388/17)
(2017/C 293/23)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Defendant: SJ AB

Questions referred







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a network in the field of transport services when transport services on a State-administered rail network for national and international rail traffic are provided in accordance with provisions in national legislation which implement Directive 2012/34 (2), which involve the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity on the basis of requests from railway companies and a requirement that all requests are to be met so far as possible?










2.


Must the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 be interpreted as meaning that an activity which is carried out by a railway company such as is referred to in Directive 2012/34 and which entails the provision of transport services to the public on a rail network constitutes the provision or operation of a network as referred to in that provision of the directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (Utilities Directive) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).
DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 - General Introduction - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.6.2017  COM(2017) 400 final   DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018  - General Introduction - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section  
 
 
DOCUMENTS 
DRAFT General Budget 
of the European Union 
for the financial year 2018 

—   General introduction 

—   General statement of revenue 

—   General statement of revenue and expenditure by section:  

—   Section 1:   European Parliament 

—    Section 2:   European Council and Council 

—    Section 3:   Commission 

—    Section 4:   Court of Justice of the European Union 

—    Section 5:   Court of Auditors 

—    Section 6:   European Economic and Social Committee 

—    Section 7:   Committee of the Regions 

—    Section 8:   European Ombudsman 

—    Section 9:   European Data Protection Supervisor 

—    Section 10: European External Action Service  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm
Case T-448/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO – Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Mr. KEBAB — Earlier Spanish figurative mark MISTER KEBAP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017277EN.01004301.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/43





Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO – Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)
(Case T-448/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Mr. KEBAB - Earlier Spanish figurative mark MISTER KEBAP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 277/63)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: Mr. Kebab s. r. o. (Košice-Západ, Slovakia) (represented by: L. Vojčík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and R. Cottrellovú, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mister Kebap, SL (Finestrat, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the 2nd Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2006 (Case R 987/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mister Kebap and Mr. Kebab.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr. Kebab s. r. o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, motor vehicle, toy industry, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2017205EN.01005501.xml










29.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/55





Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2017/C 205/06)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 381,
‘9503 00 10 Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dolls’ carriages’, the following text is inserted after the existing text:

‘This subheading also includes scooters fitted with an auxiliary motor, provided that the following limits are not exceeded:






—


a speed not exceeding 20 km per hour,










—


a net weight not exceeding 12 kg,










—


one-speed transmission,










—


only one hand brake or a foot brake on the rear wheel.




Whenever one of the above criteria is not met, scooters fitted with an auxiliary motor must be classified in heading 8711.’


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017205EN.01005301.xml










29.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/53





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 June 2017
(2017/C 205/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1375 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,53 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4366 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88525 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7780 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0913 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6020 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,326 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2375 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5510 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0079 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4986 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4888 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8759 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5648 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5752 




KRW


South Korean won


1 300,61 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8080 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7348 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4128 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 160,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8922 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,518 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,9014 




THB


Thai baht


38,675 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7632 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,4344 




INR


Indian rupee


73,4345 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8491 — PGA Group/Groupe Bernard/CDPR) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, retail trade, vehicle parts








C_2017205EN.01005801.xml










29.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/58





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8491 — PGA Group/Groupe Bernard/CDPR)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 205/09)






1.


On 12 June 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the PGA Group SAS (‘PGA Group’, France) and Bernard Participations (‘Groupe Bernard’, France) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over CDPR, previously solely controlled by Groupe Bernard by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   PGA Group: active in the retail car and spare parts distribution with its main operations in France and further activities in Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Italy.
—   Groupe Bernard: owns various automotive dealerships in France.
—   CDPR: joint venture which will be active in the distribution of automoative spare parts to the extent that Groupe Bernard will transfer to CDPR the existing activities of one of its subsidiaries (SICMA), which is already active in this business segement.










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.8491 — PGA Group/Groupe Bernard/CDPR, 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-392/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: additional benefit, pension scheme, working conditions








C_2017293EN.01002001.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA
(Case C-392/17)
(2017/C 293/24)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sindicatul Energia Oradea

Defendant: SC Termoelectrica SA

Question referred

Are the provisions of Order No 50/1990, as interpreted by judgment No 9/2016 given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) on a matter of public policy — a judgment binding on courts of law, according to which occupations classified in groups I and II are strictly and rigorously limited to those set out in Annex 1 and 2 of that order, and the courts may not extend the provisions of that order to include other similar cases, with the consequence that those former workers cannot receive the pension benefits owed as a result of the hard working conditions in which they have carried out their work — compatible with Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and with the provisions of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and successive specific directives?


(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).
Case T-27/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Error of law — Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 — Principle of legality — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, legality, operational programme, principle of legal certainty, producer organisation








C_2017277EN.01003702.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/37





Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission
(Case T-27/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Error of law - Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Principle of legality - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))
(2017/C 277/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), by which the Commission, in particular, applied to the period of 2008 to 2012 a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 849 194,86 following the exclusion of certain expenditure relating to the operational programmes of fruit and vegetable producer organisations of the United Kingdom for the years 2008 and 2009 as a result of weaknesses in the system of key controls of those programmes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8357 — Asahi/AB Inbev CEE Divestment business) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017205EN.01000101.xml










29.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8357 — Asahi/AB Inbev CEE Divestment business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 205/01)
On 1 March 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 32017M8357. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-778/15: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — It Works v EUIPO — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information technology industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017277EN.01006002.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/60





Order of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — It Works v EUIPO — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
(Case T-778/15) (1)

(2017/C 277/86)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-343/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CIPRIANI — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No breach of the right to a name of a well-known person — Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017277EN.01003101.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/31





Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)
(Case T-343/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CIPRIANI - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No breach of the right to a name of a well-known person - Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 277/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and S. Bergia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice) (represented: initially by C. Hoole, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Alkin, B. Brandreth, Barristers, W. Sander, P. Cantrill, M. Pearce, A. Hall and A. Ward, Solicitors, and finally by B. Brandreth, Barrister, and A. Poulter and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2014 (Case R 224/2012-4), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Arrigo Cipriani and Hotel Cipriani

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Arrigo Cipriani to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and those of Hotel Cipriani Srl.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.