do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-462/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, egg product, labelling, liqueur, marketing standard, product designation, spirits








C_2017347EN.01001401.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft
(Case C-462/17)
(2017/C 347/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tänzer & Trasper GmbH

Defendant: Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

Question referred

Are the components listed in category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) the minimum components that a spirit drink must contain in order to be permitted to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’ (a minimum specification) or is category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 an exhaustive list of the components that are permissible in a product seeking to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8222 — Knorr-Bremse/Haldex) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, railway industry, safety device








C_2017250EN.01002001.xml










1.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/20





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8222 — Knorr-Bremse/Haldex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 250/02)
On 24 July 2017, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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.8222 — Knorr-Bremse/Haldex, 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’).
Case T-491/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, care allowance, control of State aid, maternity benefit, organisation of health care, private sector, provision of services, public sector, social services








C_2017330EN.01001402.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/14





Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission
(Case T-491/17)
(2017/C 330/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Istituzione Pubblica di Assistenza e Beneficienza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:
annul, in its entirety or in individual parts, the Commission decision adopted on 27 March 2017 (SA.38825) State aid — Italy, presumed State aid for private providers of social and healthcare services.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified.










2.


Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, the contested measures affect trade between Member States inasmuch as they favour multinational groups and Italian companies with foreign capital contribution which invest in Italy for profit-making purposes and, by contrast, penalise smaller public providers which operate for non-profit purposes by distorting the structure of their labour costs.
Case T-474/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2017357EN.01001602.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/16





Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-474/17)
(2017/C 357/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão, and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4136 of 26 June 2017 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), in so far it excludes from European Union financing expenditure declared by Portugal relating to the alleged failure to comply with the ceilings and payment deadlines;










—


order the European Commission 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 in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 9(3) and 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8566 — Moog Singapore/SIAEC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control








C_2017250EN.01002301.xml










1.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8566 — Moog Singapore/SIAEC/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 250/06)






1.


On 24 July 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Singapore Airlines Engineering Company Limited (‘SIAEC’, Singapore), a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited (‘SIA’, Singapore), and Moog Singapore Pte Ltd (‘MSPL’, Singapore), ultimately controlled by Moog Inc. (‘Moog’, U.S.) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for SIA: passenger and cargo transport, engineering services related to air transportation and airport terminal services,
—   for SIAEC: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for aerospace sector,
—   for Moog: design, manufacture and sale of precision motion control products and systems for aerospace, defence, industrial, energy, marine and medical sectors,
—   for MSPL: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services,
—   for JV: provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for Moog’s products.










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.8566 — Moog Singapore/SIAEC/JV, 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.8498 — Toray/Mitsui/Soda) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, miscellaneous industries








C_2017250EN.01002101.xml










1.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/21





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8498 — Toray/Mitsui/Soda)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 250/04)
On 24 July 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 32017M8498. 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.8258 — Advent International/Morpho) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, security services








C_2017250EN.01002002.xml










1.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/20





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8258 — Advent International/Morpho)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 250/03)
On 19 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32017M8258. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-467/17 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2017 by Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2017 in Case T-172/17, Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio v Parliament and Council
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, appeal, genetically modified organism, limitation of legal proceedings, right to justice








C_2018032EN.01001102.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/11





Appeal brought on 1 August 2017 by Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2017 in Case T-172/17, Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio v Parliament and Council
(Case C-467/17 P)
(2018/C 032/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss (represented by: F. Longo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
By order of 29 November 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss to bear its own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017250EN.01002201.xml










1.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/22





Euro exchange rates (1)

31 July 2017
(2017/C 250/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1727 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4364 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89420 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5423 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1359 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3050 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,079 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,62 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2493 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5590 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1314 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4713 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4625 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1598 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5672 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5918 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,97 




ZAR


South African rand


15,3716 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8896 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4110 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 625,05 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0209 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,197 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4643 




THB


Thai baht


39,051 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6764 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8620 




INR


Indian rupee


75,2708 






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