do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8608 — ENGIE/La Caisse des dépôts et consignations/CEOLFALRAM76) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, investment company, merger control, solar energy, wind energy








C_2017358EN.01000201.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8608 — ENGIE/La Caisse des dépôts et consignations/CEOLFALRAM76)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 358/03)
On 18 October 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 32017M8608. 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.8481 — ABP Food Group/Fane Valley/Linden Foods) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cattle, economic concentration, meat processing industry, merger control, sheep, slaughter of animals








C_2017358EN.01000101.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8481 — ABP Food Group/Fane Valley/Linden Foods)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 358/01)
On 29 September 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 32017M8481. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-726/17: Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Alsace, access to EU information, access to information, document, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, provision of documents, right to information, right to justice








C_2018013EN.01002301.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/23





Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission
(Case T-726/17)
(2018/C 013/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Commune de Fessenheim (Fessenheim, France), Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach (Volgelsheim, France), Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin (Colmar, France) and Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: G. de Rubercy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 10 August 2017 (GESTDEM 2017/2593) refusing to communicate to the applicants the letter from the European Commission of 22 March 2017 to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant;










—


order the European Commission to communicate that letter of 22 March 2017 to the applicants;










—


order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the right of access to documents.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relating to the right to an effective remedy.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1934, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea apply
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Guinea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2017358EN.01000401.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/4





Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1934, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea apply
(2017/C 358/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1934 (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009.
The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes continue to fulfil the criterion set out in Decision 2010/638/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea and should therefore remain subject to the measures, as renewed by Decision (CFSP) 2017/1934.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation before 30 June 2018, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 273, 24.10.2017, p. 10.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, tobacco industry








C_2017358EN.01000102.xml










24.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/1





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 358/02)
On 17 October 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.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/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’).
Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1941 of 24 October 2017 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the EU Ecolabel (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, eco-label, environmental standard, labelling, technical specification, technical standard




L_2017275EN.01000901.xml










25.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 275/9








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/1941
of 24 October 2017
         
amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the EU Ecolabel
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides general guidance on the form of the EU Ecolabel logo. Specific guidance shall be given in a separate document after consulting the competent bodies in Member States and the EU Ecolabelling Board.












(2)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


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 October 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.




ANNEX



‘ANNEX II

Form of the EU Ecolabel

The EU Ecolabel shall take the following form:





Label:














Optional label with text box (the possibility for the operator to use this text box and the text used shall be that specified in the relevant product group criteria):














The EU Ecolabel registration number shall also appear on the product. It shall take the following form:





Where “xxxx” refers to the country of registration, “yyy” refers to the product group and “zzzzz” refers to the number given by the competent body.




The European Commission will provide further instructions on the design and use of the EU Ecolabel Logo after consulting the EUEB in a separate guidance document.


            ’
Case T-725/17: Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament
Date: 2017-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, equal treatment, improvement of housing, interest, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2018013EN.01002201.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/22





Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament
(Case T-725/17)
(2018/C 013/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Clestra Hauserman (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) (represented by: J. Gehin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament set out in its letter of 24 August 2017 notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted for Lot 55 in the context of call for tenders INLO–D–UPIL–T–16–AO8 relating to the project to extend and modernise the [Konrad Adenauer] Building in Luxembourg (‘the rejection decision’) and the decision awarding that lot to another tenderer (‘the award decision’);










—


order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant damages amounting to EUR 1 000 893 in respect of non-contractual liability, and in any event the amount of EUR 50 000 in respect of the cost of preparing the tender submitted in the context of call for tenders No 2014/S 123 218302;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all costs in the case.





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 irregularities in the decision to eliminate the Clestra Hauserman company in so far as that decision is based on a second procurement procedure that was improperly initiated under contract notice No 2016/S 215-391081 of 8 November 2016 following the first procurement procedure, which had resulted in the applicant company being awarded the contract.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an absence of explanation as to the admissibility of the tender of the undertaking that won the contract pursuant to the provisions of the Specifications relating to the financial and technical capacities of that undertaking (Articles 12 and 13 of the Tender Specifications) and the documents required in the Invitation to Tender (Articles I to VI.G).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the inadmissibility of the tender of the undertaking that won the contract in so far as the impropriety of that tender ought to have been established in view of its abnormally low price and, for that reason, its selection constitutes a manifest error of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and transparency with regard to the procedure in the second call for tenders.