do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-150/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2019 — V.C. Sp. z. o. o. v P.K.
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2019319EN.01002301.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2019 — V.C. Sp. z. o. o. v P.K.
(Case C-150/19)
(2019/C 319/25)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: V.C. Sp. z. o. o.

Defendant: P.K.
By order of 4 June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that Case C-150/19 is to be removed from the register of the Court.
Case C-158/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, proof, rights of the defence








C_2019172EN.01001601.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/16






Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council
(Case C-158/19 P)
(2019/C 172/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Razan Othman (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-416/16, Othman v Council of the European Union;




And, giving judgment itself,






—


Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:
The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;
The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9256 — Engie/Michelin/Région AURA/CDC/Hympulsion) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, economic concentration, electrical industry, energy industry, gas industry, investment company, merger control, motor fuel, pneumatic tyre, provision of services








C_2019079EN.01000401.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9256 — Engie/Michelin/Région AURA/CDC/Hympulsion)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 79/02)
On 21 February 2019, 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 French 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 32019M9256. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/303 of 21 February 2019 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 33rd partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2019051EN.01000601.xml










22.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/6








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/303
of 21 February 2019
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 33rd partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the 33rd partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the 33rd partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 19 February 2019, the minimum selling price shall be 163,10 EUR/100 kg.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 February 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Case C-159/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel MobileTelecom v Council
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, proof, rights of the defence








C_2019172EN.01001701.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/17






Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case C-159/19 P)
(2019/C 172/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council of the European Union;




And, giving judgment itself,






—


Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:
The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime;
The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).
Case C-157/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, proof, rights of the defence








C_2019172EN.01001501.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/15






Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council
(Case C-157/19 P)
(2019/C 172/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Ehab Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-409/16, Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union;




And, giving judgment itself,






—


Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:
The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;
The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9281 — American Securities/Belfor Holdings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, economic reconstruction, investment company, maintenance, merger control, waste management








C_2019068EN.01004701.xml










21.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/47






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9281 — American Securities/Belfor Holdings)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 68/11)

1.   
On 8 February 2019, 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:






—


American Securities LLC (‘American Securities’, USA),










—


BELFOR Holdings, Inc. (‘Belfor’, USA).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for American Securities: a private equity firm,
—   for Belfor: disaster recovery and property restoration.


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.9281 — American Securities/Belfor Holdings
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-126/19: Action brought on 21 February 2019. — Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji v Commission
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental standard, equal treatment, greenhouse gas, hydrocarbon, import (EU), marketing standard, reduction of gas emissions








C_2019148EN.01005402.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/54






Action brought on 21 February 2019. — Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji v Commission
(Case T-126/19)
(2019/C 148/53)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases, on which the contested decision is founded, and as a result find that the contested decision is flawed in that regard;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: the applicant raises a plea under Article 277 TFEU concerning the invalidity of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the contested decision being founded on that article, to the extent to which it bases the system of apportionment of quotas on reference values resulting from the historically-declared data in relation to F-gases placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, since that constitutes a discriminatory and arbitrary division of undertakings according to their historical activity on the market for gases, and it submits that the contested decision is therefore flawed in that regard.










2.


Second plea in law: the applicant alleges a breach of essential procedural requirements and the infringement of the Treaty inasmuch as inadequate reasons were given for the introduction of the mechanism for dividing undertakings active on the F-gases market on the basis of the value of the F-gases historically placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.
Case C-151/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-684/14: Krka v Commission
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cardiovascular disease, cartel, competition policy, medicinal product, patent law, patents licence, restriction on competition, technology








C_2019148EN.01002901.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/29






Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-684/14: Krka v Commission
(Case C-151/19 P)
(2019/C 148/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, F. Castilla Contreras, C. Vollrath, Agents, D. Bailey, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside points 1 to 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-684/14;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute;










—


order Krka to pay the Commission’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The first plea alleges that the General Court erred in law in holding that Krka was not a source of competitive pressure on Servier at the time of the agreements in question.
The second plea alleges errors of law by the General Court in assessing the content and objectives of the licence agreement as an incentive for Krka to accept the restrictions of the settlement agreement.
The third plea alleges errors of law in the application of the concept of restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
The fourth plea alleges errors of law in the General Court’s analysis of the parties' intentions for the purposes of applying Article 101 TFEU.
The fifth plea alleges that the General Court erred in law by taking into account the pro-competitive effects of the licence in markets that are not within the scope of the infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU found by the Decision.
The sixth plea alleges that the General Court erred in law in assessing the object of the assignment agreement.
The seventh plea alleges General Court erred in law in the application of the concept of the restriction of competition by effect within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: South Africa, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), manganese, originating product








C_2019068EN.01002801.xml










21.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/28






Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2019/C 68/08)
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).









Product


Country of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Electrolytic manganese dioxides (i.e. manganese dioxides produced through an electrolytic process) not heat-treated after the electrolytic process, currently falling within CN code ex 2820 10 00  (TARIC code 2820100010 )


The Republic of South Africa


Definitive anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 191/2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain manganese dioxides originating in the Republic of South Africa following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 59, 28.2.2014, p. 7)


1.3.2019






(1)  OJ C 203, 13.6.2018, p. 17.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9245 — BAC/Marriott/Airhotel BVBA) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airport, economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control








C_2019075EN.01000102.xml










28.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9245 — BAC/Marriott/Airhotel BVBA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 75/02)
On 21 February 2019, 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 32019M9245. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.