do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 3 December 2018 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8909 – KME/MKM Rapporteur: Cyprus (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 216/08
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations
Subjects: alloy, copper, economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2020216EN.01001101.xml










30.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/11






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 3 December 2018 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8909 – KME/MKM
Rapporteur: Cyprus
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 216/08)

Operation









1.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).





Union dimension









2.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the Merger Regulation.





Product market









3.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision for the purpose of assessing the present operation, in particular:






(a)


the supply of pre-rolled strip;










(b)


the supply of rolled products;










(c)


the supply of sanitary copper tubes.









Geographic market









4.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision, in particular:






(a)


the relevant market for the supply of pre-rolled strip is EEA-wide in scope;










(b)


the relevant markets for the supply or rolled products is EEA wide in scope;










(c)


the exact geographic markets for the supply of sanitary copper tubes could be national or EEA-wide, but can be left open.









Competitive assessment


Horizontal non-coordinated effects









5.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment on horizontal non-coordinated effects, namely that the Transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in:






(a)


the rolled copper market in the EEA;










(b)


the sanitary copper tubes markets in the EEA as a whole, or in any EEA country.









Vertical non-coordinated effects









6.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the Transaction will not significantly impede competition as a result of vertical effects between pre-rolled strip and rolled copper.





Compatibility with the internal market









7.


The Advisory Committee (7 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Articles 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
Case T-811/17: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER — Earlier EU word mark DRIVER — Relative Ground for Refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, hire purchase, maintenance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle, vehicle rental








C_2019044EN.01006801.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/68






Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)
(Case T-811/17) (1)

((EU Trade Mark - Opposition Proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER - Earlier EU word mark DRIVER - Relative Ground for Refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 44/89)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Classic Media AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 (Case R 59/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Classic Media.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Classic Media AG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems — Average costs of benefits in kind
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, family benefit, fringe benefit, migrant worker, redemption, social-security harmonisation








C_2018435EN.01003701.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/37






ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS
AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND
(2018/C 435/07)
AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND — 2016

Application of Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (1)









I.


The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 2016 to family members who do not reside in the same Member State as the insured person, as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2), will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:








 


Age group


Annual


Net monthly
x = 0,20 




The Netherlands


under 20 years


EUR 1 108,96 


EUR 73,93 




20 - 64 years


EUR 2 075,93 


EUR 138,40 




65 years and over


EUR 9 675,07 


EUR 645,00 
















II.


The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2016 to pensioners and members of their family, as provided for in Article 24(1) and Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:









 


Age group


Annual


Net monthly
x = 0,20 


Net monthly
x = 0,15  (3)





The Netherlands


under 20 years


EUR 1 108,96 


EUR 73,93 


EUR 78,55 




20 – 64 years


EUR 2 075,93 


EUR 138,40 


EUR 147,04 




65 years and over


EUR 9 675,07 


EUR 645,00 


EUR 685,32 










(1)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

(3)  The reduction applied to the monthly fixed amount shall be equal to 15 % (x = 0,15) for pensioners and members of their family when the competent Member State is not listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (according to Article 64(3) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018435EN.01000401.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 November 2018
(2018/C 435/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1359 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,99 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4622 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89068 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3195 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1340 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7400 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,957 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,62 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2900 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6598 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,8753 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5116 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8851 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6556 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5581 




KRW


South Korean won


1 274,04 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6258 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8897 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4055 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 246,21 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7532 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,536 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,0734 




THB


Thai baht


37,348 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3843 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0910 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0815 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-761/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2018 by Päivi Leino-Sandberg against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17: Leino-Sandberg v Parliament
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information, judicial proceedings, provision of documents








C_2019082EN.01001002.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/10






Appeal brought on 3 December 2018 by Päivi Leino-Sandberg against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17: Leino-Sandberg v Parliament
(Case C-761/18 P)
(2019/C 82/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17;










—


make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, and










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: errors of law in the contested order when it holds that there is no longer a purpose to the action, and therefore no need to adjudicate. The appellant submits that the contested order incorrectly does not apply the legal test set out in Case C-57/16 P, ClientEarth v. Commission (EU:C:2018:660) under which it should have concluded that because the European Parliament has not withdrawn the contested decision, the purpose of the action remained.
Second ground of appeal: errors of law and procedure in the contested order when it holds that there is no longer an interest in bringing proceedings. The appellant submits that the contested order misapplies the legal test set out in established case-law, including Case C-57/16 P, under which it should have concluded that the unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the case, and that therefore the interest in bringing proceedings remained.