do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, foodstuff, investment company, mass media, merger control, real property, retail trade, technology, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2018308EN.01000301.xml










31.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 308/02)
On 23 August 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 32018M9058. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018297EN.01000301.xml










23.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 August 2018
(2018/C 297/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1616 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,08 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4588 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89928 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5075 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1401 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6808 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,725 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2821 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6485 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0071 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5785 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5126 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1184 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7319 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5860 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,95 




ZAR


South African rand


16,5803 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9470 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4295 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 936,13 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7655 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,028 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,9307 




THB


Thai baht


38,019 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6912 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8821 




INR


Indian rupee


81,1900 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, disease of the nervous system, economic concentration, joint venture, merger control, miscellaneous industries, pharmaceutical industry, therapeutics








C_2018297EN.01000601.xml










23.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 297/07)

1.   
On 17 August 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Biogen Inc. (‘Biogen’, United States) and Samsung BioLogics Co. Ltd. (‘Samsung BioLogics’, South Korea), a company controlled by the Samsung Group (South Korea), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd. (‘Bioepis’, South Korea), currently solely controlled by Samsung BioLogics.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Biogen: a biopharmaceutical company active in research, development and provision of therapies for serious neurological and neurodegenerative diseases worldwide,
—   for Samsung BioLogics: a company active in the development and manufacturing of biopharmaceutical products worldwide,
—   for Samsung Group: a conglomerate active in a wide array of industries, including electronics, shipbuilding, engineering and insurance,
—   for Bioepis: active in the development of biosimilar medicines. Bioepis is a joint venture between Samsung BioLogics and Biogen.


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 the 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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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.
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Apple/Shazam (M.8788)
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, information technology industry, merger control, mobile phone, music








C_2018417EN.01000301.xml










16.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/3






Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Apple/Shazam
(M.8788)
(2018/C 417/03)

1.   

On 14 March 2018, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2) (the ‘Merger Regulation’) by which Apple Inc. (the ‘Notifying Party’ or ‘Apple’) would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Shazam Entertainment Ltd (‘Shazam’) (the ‘Proposed Transaction’). (3) Apple and Shazam are collectively referred to hereinafter as ‘Parties’.



2.   

On 23 April 2018, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation, raising serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Proposed Transaction with the internal market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as a result of non-horizontal non-coordinated effects in respect of digital music streaming apps and automatic content recognition (‘ACR’) software solutions, including music recognition apps. On 15 May 2018, the Notifying Party submitted its reply to the Article 6(1)(c) Decision.



3.   

On 15 May 2018, the Commission extended the second phase investigation period by ten working days at the request of the Notifying Party pursuant to the second subparagraph, first sentence, of Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation.



4.   

Following its investigation, the Commission concluded that the Proposed Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. The decision therefore declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.



5.   

I have not received any request or complaint from the Parties about the exercise of their right to be heard. Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.



Brussels, 23 August 2018.

Joos STRAGIER




(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(3)  The Proposed Transaction was initially notified to the Austrian competition authority on 21 December 2017. Following the latter’s referral request pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Merger Regulation, joined by the competition authorities of several other Member States, the Commission decided on 6 February 2018 to accept the referral request and to examine the Proposed Transaction pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation.
Case C-548/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2018 — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, commercial law, private international law








C_2018436EN.01002003.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2018 — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg
(Case C-548/18)
(2018/C 436/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

Respondent: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I Regulation) (1) applicable to the third-party effects of multiple assignments of claims?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?










3.


If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is that provision applicable mutatis mutandis?










4.


If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.
Case C-547/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, branch, nationality of legal persons, subsidiary








C_2019044EN.01000702.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-547/18)
(2019/C 44/10)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Questions referred







1.


Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2)











2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, is a third party required to examine contractual relationships between a company established outside the European Union and its subsidiary in order to determine whether the former company has a fixed establishment in Poland?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8879 — JERA Trading/LNG Optimisation) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coal industry, economic concentration, gas industry, management techniques, merger control








C_2018310EN.01000202.xml










3.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8879 — JERA Trading/LNG Optimisation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 310/04)
On 23 August 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 32018M8879. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.