do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, air transport, inland transport, island, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2017441EN.01001901.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/19





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/12)






Member State


Italy




Routes concerned


Pantelleria – Trapani and vice versa;
Pantelleria – Palermo and vice versa;
Pantelleria – Palermo and vice versa;
Lampedusa – Palermo and vice versa;
Lampedusa – Catania and vice versa.




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 July 2018




Address where the text and any information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


For further information:





Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport




Department of Transport, Navigation, General Affairs and Human Resources




Directorate-General for Airports and Air Transport




Via Giuseppe Caraci, 36




00157 Rome




ITALIA




Tel. +39 0641583690









National Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)




Air transport development and licensing department (Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo e licenze) Viale Castro Pretorio, 118




00185 Rome




ITALIA




Tel. +39 0644596515




Internet:




http://www.mit.gov.it




http://www.enac.gov.it




Email: dg.ta@pec.mit.gov
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, organic chemical, solvent








C_2017441EN.01001601.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/16





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/09)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 8333


15 December 2017


1,2 -dichloroethane EC No 203-458-1 CAS No 107-06-2


GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences AB, Björkgatan 30, BA 1-1, 75184 Uppsala, Sweden


REACH/17/33/0


Industrial use of 1,2 -dichloroethane as an emulsifying solvent in the manufacture of porous particles for beaded chromatography and cell culture media


22 November 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-830/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018063EN.01002001.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/20





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission
(Case T-830/17)
(2018/C 063/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 24 February 2017 and, insofar as necessary, the act rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 September 2017;










—


Order the 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 the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The contested decision merely cites extracts from case-law and does not set out the list of selection criteria drawn up by the selection board prior to the assessment of the application forms.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant criticises, in that regard, the manner in which the selection board assessed the data entered in the application form.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice. The applicant submits that the selection board failed to cross-match the various sections of the application form in order to decide whether the applicant met one of the conditions for admission to the competition.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8680 — Bain Capital/Toshiba Memory Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, secondary sector








C_2017441EN.01000101.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8680 — Bain Capital/Toshiba Memory Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/01)
On 14 December 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 32017M8680. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical process, chemical product, health control, health risk, inorganic chemical product, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017441EN.01001701.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/17





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/10)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 8346


15 December 2017


Ammonium dichromate
EC No 232-143-1, CAS No 7789-09-5


Veco B.V., Karel van Gelreweg 22, 6961 LB Eerbeek, The Netherlands


REACH/17/28/0


Use of ammonium dichromate as photosensitive component in a polyvinyl alcohol photolithographic lacquer system for the production of mandrels which are used in nickel electroforming processes


21 September 2024


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies for the applicant.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Order of the Court of 22 December 2017 in Case E-1/17 — Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Absolute bar to proceeding with a case — State aid — Decision to close formal investigation procedure)
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, bus, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, provision of services, public contract, reimbursement of aid, transport company








C_2018130EN.01000401.xml










12.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/4





ORDER OF THE COURT
of 22 December 2017
in Case E-1/17
Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Absolute bar to proceeding with a case — State aid — Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

(2018/C 130/04)
In Case E-1/17, Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015 closing a formal investigation concerning State aid granted to Nettbuss Sør AS, which was published in EEA Supplement no. 59/1 to the Official Journal on 27 October 2016, the Court, composed of, Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 22 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The application is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Konkurrenten.no AS is to bear its own costs, and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the County of Aust-Agder and Nettbuss AS.










3.


The Kingdom of Norway bears its own costs.
Case T-832/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, provision of services, publishing, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018063EN.01002101.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/21





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)
(Case T-832/17)
(2018/C 063/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘achtung!’ — International registration No 1 297 443

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 in Case R 490/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4);










—


amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4) in such a way that international registration No 1 297 443 ‘achtung!’ (word/figure) is protected for the European Union;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law

In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The defendant, it submits, erred in law in assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8705 — BC Partners/Ceramtec) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ceramics, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, parent company








C_2017441EN.01000201.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8705 — BC Partners/Ceramtec)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/03)
On 15 December 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 32017M8705. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-724/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 December 2017 — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, damages, indemnification, national law, restriction on competition, transfer of businesses








C_2018083EN.01001401.xml










5.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 December 2017 — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy
(Case C-724/17)
(2018/C 083/21)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vantaan kaupunki

Respondents: Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy

Questions referred







1.


Is the determination of which parties are liable for the compensation of damage caused by conduct contrary to Article 101 TFEU to be done by applying that article directly or on the basis of national provisions?










2.


If the parties liable are determined directly on the basis of Article 101 TFEU, are those parties which fall within the concept of undertaking mentioned in that article liable for compensation? When determining the parties liable for compensation, are the same principles to be applied as the Court of Justice has applied to determining the parties liable in cases concerning penalty payments, in accordance with which liability may be founded in particular on belonging to the same economic unit or on economic continuity?










3.


If the parties liable are determined on the basis of national provisions of a Member State, are national rules under which a company which, after acquiring the entire share capital of a company which took part in a cartel contrary to Article 101 TFEU, has dissolved the company in question and continued its activity is not liable for compensation for the damage caused by the anti-competitive conduct of the company in question, even though obtaining compensation form the dissolved company is impossible in practice or unreasonably difficult, contrary to the EU law requirement of effectiveness? Does the requirement of effectiveness preclude an interpretation of a Member State’s domestic law making it a condition of compensation for damage that a transformation of the kind described has been implemented unlawfully or artificially in order to avoid liability for compensation for damage under competition law or otherwise fraudulently, or at least that the company knew or ought to have known of the competition infringement when implementing the transformation?