do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8512 — A.P. Moller Maersk/Danske Bank/Gatetu) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, financial institution, information technology industry, maritime shipping, merger control, transport company








C_2017278EN.01000102.xml










22.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8512 — A.P. Moller Maersk/Danske Bank/Gatetu)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 278/02)
On 16 August 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 32017M8512. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-513/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative offence, administrative sanction, driving period, rest period, road safety, road transport, territorial jurisdiction








C_2017382EN.01003301.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner
(Case C-513/17)
(2017/C 382/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Josef Baumgartner

Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty imposed on an undertaking or a manager of an undertaking pursuant to Paragraphs 30, 9 and 130 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (German Law on administrative offences, ‘OWiG’) for an administrative offence committed at the seat of the undertaking may be imposed only by the Member State in whose territory the undertaking has its seat? Or are other Member States also authorised to impose a penalty for the administrative offence when that offence has been detected on their territory?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).
Commission Decision of 22 August 2017 on public holidays for 2019 for the institutions of the European Union
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU institution, public holiday








C_2017279EN.01000301.xml










23.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/3





COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 August 2017
on public holidays for 2019 for the institutions of the European Union
(2017/C 279/03)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS), laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Article 61 thereof and Articles 16 and 91 of the CEOS,
Having regard to the joint rules establishing the list of public holidays of officials of the European Communities, and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The list of public holidays in 2019 for staff in Brussels and Luxembourg should be adopted pursuant to Article 61 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Articles 16 and 91 of the CEOS.










(2)


In 2019, Easter Sunday falls on 21 April.










(3)


In 2019, 24 December falls on a Tuesday.










(4)


On 7 June 2017, the Heads of Administration were consulted for their opinion on the list of public holidays for 2019,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The public holidays for 2019 for the institutions of the European Union shall be established for Brussels and Luxembourg.







1 January


Tuesday, New Year's Day




2 January


Wednesday, the day following New Year's Day




18 April


Maundy Thursday




19 April


Good Friday




22 April


Easter Monday




1 May


Wednesday, Labour Day




9 May


Thursday, Anniversary of the Schuman Declaration




30 May


Thursday, Ascension Day




31 May


Friday, the day following Ascension Day




10 June


Whit Monday




15 August


Thursday, Assumption




1 November


Friday, All Saints' Day




24 December
to
31 December


Tuesday
Tuesday


6 end-of-year days




Article 2
Work will resume as normal on Friday 3 January 2020.
Article 3
Without prejudice to the entire final schedule of public holidays for 2020, Wednesday 1 January and Thursday 2 January 2020 will be holidays.

Done at Brussels, 22 August 2017.


For the Commission

Günther H. OETTINGER

Member of the Commission





(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8483 — Bain Capital Investors/Cinven Capital Management/Stada Arzneimittel) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, food supplement, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2017278EN.01000101.xml










22.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8483 — Bain Capital Investors/Cinven Capital Management/Stada Arzneimittel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 278/01)
On 29 June 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 32017M8483. 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.8359 — Amundi/Crédit Agricole/Pioneer Investments) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2017278EN.01000202.xml










22.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8359 — Amundi/Crédit Agricole/Pioneer Investments)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 278/04)
On 24 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 32017M8359. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017278EN.01000301.xml










22.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 August 2017
(2017/C 278/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1761 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,17 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4373 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91318 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5173 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1362 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2903 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,086 




HUF


Hungarian forint


303,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2738 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5849 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1243 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4831 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4815 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2015 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6072 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6024 




KRW


South Korean won


1 339,54 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5304 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8462 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4053 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 703,29 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0449 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,474 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4996 




THB


Thai baht


39,111 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7042 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8321 




INR


Indian rupee


75,4385 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-571/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — UG v Commission
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: deduction at source, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, indemnification, interest, parental leave, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), union representative








C_2017357EN.01002501.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/25





Action brought on 22 August 2017 — UG v Commission
(Case T-571/17)
(2017/C 357/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 May 2017 (No R/40/17) and all the decisions which form the basis thereof;










—


Order the re-employment of the applicant;










—


Order the European Commission to pay pending salaries and damages of EUR 40 000;










—


Annul the salary deductions made unlawfully;










—


Reimburse the sum of EUR 6 818,81 deducted in excess of the salary deductions made unlawfully;










—


Order the European Commission to pay all the costs and to pay the legal fees, provisionally assessed at EUR 10 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in that the Commission organised no more than a semblance of a procedure prior to dismissal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging material errors vitiating the contested decision, in that the grounds on which it is based are imprecise, not real and not genuine.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in that the Commission dismissed the applicant because of the applicant’s trade union activities and for having taken parental leave.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, Clause 5.4 of the Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave following Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13), Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) and Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, failing to follow the disciplinary procedure.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the penalty is disproportionate.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8556 — Carlyle/GTCR/Albany Molecular Research) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, mass media, merger control, organisation of health care, pharmaceutical industry, research body, technology, telecommunications








C_2017278EN.01000201.xml










22.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8556 — Carlyle/GTCR/Albany Molecular Research)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 278/03)
On 16 August 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 32017M8556. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-582/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council
Date: 2017-08-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, non-proliferation of arms








C_2017374EN.01004101.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/41





Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council
(Case T-582/17)
(2017/C 374/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) and 7 other applicants (represented by: P. Chansay-Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely,






—


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;










—


Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo;














—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vaguely reasoned and significantly vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicants, the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against them are unfounded in both fact and law. Moreover, the Council committed several irregularities, each capable of justifying the annulment of the contested acts.