do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8496 — Strabag/Max Bögl International/SMB) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, civil engineering, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, road network








C_2018218EN.01000102.xml










22.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8496 — Strabag/Max Bögl International/SMB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 218/02)
On 14 June 2018, 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 32018M8496. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-20/18: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, infringement procedure (EU), literary and artistic property, music, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), trade licence








C_2018341EN.01001104.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/11






Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
(Case C-20/18) (1)

(2018/C 341/18)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-13/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) 2015/514)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU office or agency, European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, disclosure of information, financial control, financial legislation, financial market, investment company, market supervision








C_2018414EN.01000801.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/8






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-13/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) 2015/514)

(2018/C 414/10)
In Case E-13/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018205EN.01000401.xml










14.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 June 2018
(2018/C 205/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1764 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4503 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88210 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1360 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1616 




ISK


Iceland króna


125,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4373 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,711 




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2766 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6650 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,4603 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5506 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5313 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2325 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6713 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5711 




KRW


South Korean won


1 275,88 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5908 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5293 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3800 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 426,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6985 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,616 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,8286 




THB


Thai baht


37,798 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3587 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3141 




INR


Indian rupee


79,5340 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-12/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 448/2013)
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU Member State, European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, financial control, financial legislation, freedom to provide services, investment company, market supervision, third country








C_2018414EN.01000701.xml










15.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/7






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 June 2018
in Case E-12/17
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 448/2013)

(2018/C 414/09)
In Case E-12/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case C-395/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
Date: 2018-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: principle of proportionality, provision of services, subcontracting, tendering








C_2018301EN.01001601.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-395/18)
(2018/C 301/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

Defendants: Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 57 and 71(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which requires the exclusion of a tendering economic operator where, during the tendering procedure, a ground is established for excluding a subcontractor forming part of the group of three subcontractors specified in the tender, rather than requiring the tenderer to replace the designated subcontractor?










2.


In the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the option of excluding the tenderer is one of the options open to the Member State, does the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the EU Treaty, referred to in recital 101 of Directive 2014/24/EU and established as a general principle of EU law by the Court of Justice, preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which provides that, where a ground for excluding a designated subcontractor is established during the tendering procedure, a tendering economic operator is to be excluded in all cases, including where there are other subcontractors that have not been excluded and satisfy the requirements for the provision of the services to be subcontracted, or where the tendering economic operator declares that it will not subcontract as it satisfies the requirements for the provision of the services on its own?






(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).