do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8960 — Adient/Boeing/JV (Aircraft seats)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, spare part








C_2019024EN.01000101.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8960 — Adient/Boeing/JV (Aircraft seats))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 24/01)
On 5 October 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 32018M8960. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-628/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financial instrument, data collection, financial control, financial legislation, infringement procedure (EU), investment company, national implementing measure, sanction (EU)








C_2018427EN.01003201.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/32






Action brought on 5 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-628/18)
(2018/C 427/41)
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and B. Rous Demiri)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by not having adopted (all) of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, and with Directive (EU) 2016/1034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2016 amending Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments, or by not having notified the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2016/1034;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem penalty payment of EUR 7 224 from delivery of the judgment in the present case, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directives 2014/65/EU and 2016/1034/EU;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem lump sum of EUR 1 978 multiplied by the number of days for which the infringement has persisted, for a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 496 000; and










—


order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive 2016/1034/EU, the Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 3 July 2017, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the aforementioned directive and forthwith to communicate those provisions to the Commission. As the Republic of Slovenia did not, within that deadline, communicate to the Commission the measures transposing those directives, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.
By its action, the Commission claims that the Court should order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a lump sum and a per diem penalty payment.
The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 July 2017.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity — end of suspension of deadline
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, Southern Finland, airport, business lease, provision of services, public contract, traveller








C_2018359EN.01000901.xml










5.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/9






Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a contracting entity — end of suspension of deadline
(2018/C 359/07)
On 1 March 2018 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 2 March 2018.
This request is made by Finavia Oyj and concerns activities relating to the provision of businesses premises for commercial actors providing commercial services (duty free, retail, food and beverages and other passenger services) for flight passengers at Helsinki airport’s terminals in Finland. The relevant notice was published on page 21 of OJ C 114 on 28 March 2018. The initial deadline was 3 October 2018.
Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 23 April 2018 the Commission asked the Finnish Authorities to provide additional information by 7 May 2018 at the latest. The reply of the Finnish authorities was received on 18 May 2018.
In the event of late or incomplete answers, the initial deadline shall be suspended for 6 working days (the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information).
On 29 June 2018 the Commission asked the Applicant to provide additional information by 3 July 2018 at the latest. The Applicant asked for additional time in order to provide the reply, which was received on 31 August 2018. The deadlines available to the Commission to adopt a decision was prolonged by additional 42 working days (the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information).
The final deadline therefore expires on 12 December 2018.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018359EN.01000601.xml










5.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 October 2018
(2018/C 359/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1502 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4567 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88580 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4015 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1409 




ISK


Iceland króna


130,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4643 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,780 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3071 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6723 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0525 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6234 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4800 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0114 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7706 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5870 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,27 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8813 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9006 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4240 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 448,53 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7699 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,482 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,6491 




THB


Thai baht


37,537 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5116 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9097 




INR


Indian rupee


84,6280 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-609/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, data processing, electricity storage device, electro-magnetic equipment, information storage and retrieval, magnetic medium, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2018445EN.01002201.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/22






Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)
(Case T-609/18)
(2018/C 445/27)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media GmbH (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schulze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger und C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘d:ternity’ — EU trade mark No 11 152 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 in Case R 2324/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-599/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, claim, company in difficulties, credit institution, economic value, financial loss, financial solvency








C_2018427EN.01010101.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/101






Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB
(Case T-599/18)
(2018/C 427/133)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, P. Medina Sánchez and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of 14 September 2018;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) of 14 September 2018 not to carry out an ex-post definitive valuation in the context of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning a resolution scheme in respect of the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. (‘the contested decision’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). That plea is divided into three parts.






—


First part, based on the argument that the contested decision determines the possibility to write back creditors’ claims or increase the value of the consideration paid without carrying out an ex-post definitive valuation.










—


Second part, based on the argument that the SRB did not verify that the information on which the valuation is based are as recent and complete as possible and, accordingly, any losses incurred on the assets of an entity may be fully taken into account.










—


Third part, based on infringement of the Meroni case-law in that the Commission should have given its consent to the SRB’s decision not to ensure that an ex-post definitive valuation is carried out.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power which vitiates the contested decision and which a body of objective, relevant and consistent evidence demonstrates. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the contested decision does not follow the procedure of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 referred to above and that SRB’s aim in adopting that decision is to hide the real situation of Banco Popular Español, S.A.
Case T-602/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, environmental protection, farming project, power of decision, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018436EN.01006001.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/60






Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission
(Case T-602/18)
(2018/C 436/84)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Enguera (Enguera, Spain) (represented by: J. Palau Navarro, J. Ortiz Ballester and V. Soriano i Piqueras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the decision of 26 July 2018 of the Head of Unit, ‘ENV.D.4 — Life Programme’, of Directorate ‘ENV.D Natural Capital’ of the Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission, under the subject matter ‘LIFE 10 ENV/ES/000458 — ECOGLAUGA ÉRGON — Confirmation of recovery order’.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, on account of the failure to state reasons in the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the inaccuracy of the reasons stated, if it is found that there is implicit reasoning.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as:






—


The right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, has been disregarded. In the present case, neither were the applicant’s written submissions taken into account in any way, nor was it invited to submit arguments prior to the adoption of the final decision;










—


The applicant’s requests to access the file in its entirety have been ignored;










—


Although the applicant has at all times corresponded with the defendant in Spanish, the Commission has issued all of its communications and decisions in English.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition of arbitrariness on the part of public authorities, inasmuch as the contested decision fails to apply the appropriate scientific norms or criteria, but instead applies a mere subjective criterion reducing or cancelling, without justification, all financial participation by the European Union in an approved project.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the Commission, in adopting its decision, departed from its previous decisions, in which it fully confirmed its agreement with the activities developed by the applicant, with the result that the applicant was subject to a sudden and incomprehensible decision could not have been anticipated on the basis of the Commission’s previous behaviour.
Case C-627/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 5 October 2018 — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2018455EN.01002301.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 5 October 2018 — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)
(Case C-627/18)
(2018/C 455/33)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Questions referred







1.


Does the limitation period for the exercise of the powers to recover aid, provided for in Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, apply only to relations between the European Union and the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed, or does it apply also to relations between that Member State and the opponent, as the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market?










2.


Should it be found that that limitation period is applicable to relations between the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed and the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market, must it be understood that that period is applicable only at the procedural stage, or also to the enforcement of the recovery decision?










3.


Should it be found that that limitation period is applicable to relations between the Member State to which the decision to recover aid and the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market, must it be understood that that period may be interrupted by any measure concerning illegal aid adopted by the Commission or by the Member State, even where such measures have not been notified to the beneficiary of the aid to be recovered?










4.


Does Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015, together with the principles of EU law, namely the principles of effectiveness and of the incompatibility of State aid with the Single Market, preclude the application of a limitation period of a lesser duration than that laid down in Article 17 of the regulation, such as that provided for in Article 310(1)(d) of the Civil Code, to the interest accruing on the aid to be recovered?






(1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control








C_2018359EN.01000701.xml










5.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 359/06)

1.   
On 28 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:






—


Jin Jiang International Holdings Co., Ltd (‘Jin Jiang’, China), a State-owned company,










—


Radisson Holdings, Inc. (United States of America) and Radisson Hospitality AB (Sweden) (together ‘Radisson’).




Jin Jiang acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Radisson.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Jin Jiang: a hospitality and travel group that develops and manages hotels in China and the rest of the world. Jin Jiang operates a wide range of hotels, under the brands J.Hotel, Jin Jiang, Metropolo, Jin Jiang Inn, the series of brands under Groupe du Louvre, the series of brands under Plateno Group and the series of brands under Vienna Hotel,
—   for Radisson: an operator of a range of hotel brands with a focus on the luxury, upper upscale, upscale and upper midscale segments. In the EEA, these brands include Radisson Collection, Radisson Blu, Radisson, Radisson Red, Park Plaza, Park Inn by Radisson.


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.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson
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’).