do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9189 — Cerberus Group/Marke Creative Merchandise) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merchandising, merger control








C_2018428EN.01000501.xml










27.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9189 — Cerberus Group/Marke Creative Merchandise)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 428/04)

1.   
On 16 November 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:






—


The Cerberus Group (USA, ‘Cerberus’),










—


Marke Creative Merchandise Ltd (USA, ‘Marke’), a subsidiary of Staples, Inc.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Cerberus is a private investment firm which is active in diverse industries worldwide,










—


Marke is globally active in the provision of creative brand merchandising solutions in numerous industries including automotive, financial services, beverages, logistics, technology and retail.






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.9189 — Cerberus Group/Marke Creative Merchandise
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.
Case T-829/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year — Right to good administration — Legal certainty — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: eligibility criteria, financial aid, financial year, party financing, political parties, principle of legal certainty








C_2019044EN.01002602.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/26






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament
(Case T-829/16) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year - Right to good administration - Legal certainty - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party))
(2019/C 44/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case C-738/18 PP: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by Duferco Long Products SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2018 in Case T-93/17 Duferco Long Products v Commission
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, holding company, investment company, iron and steel industry, private investment, reimbursement of aid, shareholding, subsidiary








C_2019035EN.01001501.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/15






Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by Duferco Long Products SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2018 in Case T-93/17 Duferco Long Products v Commission
(Case C-738/18 PP)
(2019/C 35/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Duferco Long Products SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart, Q. Declève, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:






1.


Set aside the judgment under appeal (T-93/17, EU:T:2018:558);










2.


Annul Article 1(f), and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco;










3.


Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by refusing to examine two errors of calculation made by the Commission in the context of the assessment of the pari passu nature of the sixth measure referred to in the Commission Decision of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) and in the application of the private investor in a market economy test.
In particular, the applicant submits that:






—


The General Court did not carry out an adequate judicial review of the manner in which the Commission applied the private investor in a market economy test










—


The General Court should have examined, as a matter of priority, the plea alleging errors made by the Commission in assessing the pari passu nature of that sixth measure rather than favouring analysis of the documents provided by Belgium.
Case T-693/18: Action brought on 27 November 2018 — ZY v European Commission
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electricity supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2019035EN.01002801.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/28






Action brought on 27 November 2018 — ZY v European Commission
(Case T-693/18)
(2019/C 35/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ZY (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2018) 3166 final SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;










—


in the alternative, annul Commission Decision C(2018) 3166 final SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018, in so far as it orders, with respect to baseload consumers with at least 7 000 user hours per year, the repayment of 20 %, with respect to baseload consumers with at least 7 500 user hours per year, the repayment of 15 %, and with respect to baseload consumers with at least 8 000 user hours per year, the repayment of 10 % of the published network charges;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including legal and travel costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;
In the context of the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law during its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
In addition, during the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
In the context of the second plea in law, it is alleged that, the defendant’s decision only provided for the obligation to make repayments for baseload consumers who were entirely exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. As a result, those baseload consumers were unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers, who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and in respect of which there were no obligations to make repayments.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;
In the context of the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could rely on its right to retain the awarded special network charges.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9137 — Rehau/MB Barter &amp; Trading) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, petrochemicals, plastics industry, rubber industry








C_2018444EN.01000902.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 444/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9137 — Rehau/MB Barter & Trading)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 444/03)
On 27 November 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 German language 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 32018M9137. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.