do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-546/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi — Spain) — Montte SL v Musikene (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether the referring body qualifies as a court or tribunal — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement procedures — Open procedure — Award criteria — Technical evaluation — Minimum score threshold — Price-based evaluation)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, competition law, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2018408EN.01000702.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi — Spain) — Montte SL v Musikene
(Case C-546/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Whether the referring body qualifies as a court or tribunal - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement procedures - Open procedure - Award criteria - Technical evaluation - Minimum score threshold - Price-based evaluation))
(2018/C 408/06)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Montte SL

Respondent: Musikene

Operative part of the judgment







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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows contracting authorities to lay down, in the documents governing an open procurement procedure, minimum requirements as regards the technical evaluation, so that the tenders submitted which do not reach a predetermined minimum score threshold at the end of that evaluation are excluded from the subsequent evaluation based on both technical criteria and price.










2.


Article 66 of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows contracting authorities to lay down, in the documents governing an open procurement procedure, minimum requirements as regards the technical evaluation, so that the tenders submitted which do not reach a predetermined minimum score threshold at the end of that evaluation are excluded from the subsequent stages of the procurement procedure, regardless of the number of tenderers remaining.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, innovation, mass media, pluralism in the media








C_2018335EN.01001801.xml










20.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/18






State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2018/C 335/10)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


14 June 2018




Case No


:


82119




Decision No


:


061/18/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Region


:




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media




Legal basis


:


Forskrift om innovasjons- og utviklingstilskudd til nyhets- og aktualitetsmedier




Type of measure


:


Scheme




Objective


:


Media pluralism




Form of aid


:


Grant




Budget


:


NOK 30 million




Intensity


:


40 % (50 % for small enterprises)




Duration


:


2018-2022




Economic sectors


:


C.58.1 Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing activities, C.60.1 Radio broadcasting, C.60.2 Television programming and broadcasting activities and C.63.9 Other information service activities




Name and address of the granting authority


:







The Norwegian Media Authority




Nygata 4




NO-1607 Fredrikstad




NORWAY








Other information


:




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9054 — Broadcom/CA) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2018335EN.01002101.xml










20.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9054 — Broadcom/CA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 335/13)

1.   
On 12 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Broadcom Inc. (United States),










—


CA, Inc. (United States).




Broadcom Inc. acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of CA, Inc..
The concentration is accomplished by way of merger.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Broadcom Inc.: manufacturing of semiconductors and hardware for communications, storage, and industrial applications;
—   for CA, Inc.: development of software that assists customers in developing, operating, testing, deploying, and securing their business applications and databases.


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.9054 — Broadcom/CA
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9098 — Goldman Sachs/Orix/ILS) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2018347EN.01000102.xml










28.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9098 — Goldman Sachs/Orix/ILS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 347/02)
On 20 September 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 32018M9098. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-668/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eico — Earlier EU word mark MAICO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005501.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/55






Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)
(Case T-668/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eico - Earlier EU word mark MAICO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 408/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark) (represented by: A. Skov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 (Case R 2089/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Maico Holding and Eico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Maico Holding GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case C-555/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 — Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Internet, data transmission, electronic component, specification of tariff heading, television, television equipment, video communications








C_2018408EN.01003002.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/30






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-555/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 - Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology))
(2018/C 408/39)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: 2M-Locatel A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology, such as the apparatus at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified under subheading 8528 71 90 thereof, provided that they do not incorporate a video tuner or a ‘television tuner’, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case C-583/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, consumer protection, contract, contract of carriage, discount sale, provision of services








C_2018455EN.01002002.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH
(Case C-583/18)
(2018/C 455/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

Defendant: DB Vertrieb GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 2(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) to be interpreted to mean that it also covers contracts by means of which the trader is not directly obliged to supply a service, but rather the consumer acquires the right to receive a discount for services ordered in the future?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Is the exception for ‘contracts … for passenger transport services’ in Article 3(3)(k) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights to be interpreted to mean that it also applies to situations in which the consumer does not directly receive a passenger transport service as consideration, but rather acquires the right to receive a discount for contracts for transport services to be concluded in the future?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Case C-590/18 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018427EN.01002101.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/21






Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission
(Case C-590/18 P)
(2018/C 427/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it;










—


give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by:






—


annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and










—


reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120;














—


order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by validating the Commission's approach to apply Point 18 of its 2006 Guidelines (2) as if the entire infringement only covered the ‘worldwide part’ of the cartel and did not have an ‘intra-EEA part’ involving only the European suppliers.
As a result, the Commission determined the notional values of sales for the cartel participants in a way that significantly undervalued the role of the European suppliers and overvalued the role of the Asian suppliers, including Fujikura, in this infringement.


(1)  Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9059 — CVC/Messer Group/Divestment Business) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, gas industry, investment company, merger control








C_2018335EN.01002301.xml










20.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/23






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9059 — CVC/Messer Group/Divestment Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 335/14)

1.   
On 14 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’) (Luxembourg),










—


Messer Group GmbH (‘Messer’) (Germany), and










—


Divestment Business, which consists of assets and businesses in North and South America as well as global helium sourcing contracts and assets, being divested in the context of the proposed merger between Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG.




CVC and Messer, through a newly created joint venture, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Divestment Business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Messer: industrial gases and related businesses as well as services related to those products,
—   for CVC: provision of advice to and management of investments funds and platforms,
—   for the Divestment Business: industrial gases and related businesses in North and South America as well as helium sourcing activities globally.


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.



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.9059 — CVC/Messer Group/Divestment Business
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’).
Case C-343/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest APB) and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental freedoms — Articles 21, 45, 49 and 63 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Articles 22 and 24 — Right of pre-emption of a government body on land located in its operating area with a view to developing social housing — Housing allocated on a priority basis to private individuals who ‘have strong social, economic or socio-cultural ties’ with the area in which that body operates — Situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2018-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, fundamental rights, plot, public institution, right of establishment, right of pre-emption, subsidised housing








C_2018408EN.01002501.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/25






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest APB) and Others
(Case C-343/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 21, 45, 49 and 63 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 22 and 24 - Right of pre-emption of a government body on land located in its operating area with a view to developing social housing - Housing allocated on a priority basis to private individuals who ‘have strong social, economic or socio-cultural ties’ with the area in which that body operates - Situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))
(2018/C 408/31)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fremoluc NV

Defendants: Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest APB), Vlaams Financieringsfonds voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant, Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen NV (VMSW), Christof De Knop and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Dutch-language Court of First Instance, Brussels, Belgium), made by decision of 19 May 2017, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.