# Official Journal C 50/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 628 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 50

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 628 February 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 50/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9248 — Sumitomo/Mahindra/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2019/C 50/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 50/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9248 — Sumitomo/Mahindra/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2019/C 50/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 50/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2019/C 50/04 | Single Resolution Board — Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank, AS | 3 |
| 2019/C 50/05 | Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A. | 3 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2019/C 50/06 | Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a new Regulation on the Visa Information System | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 50/03

Euro exchange rates

2

2019/C 50/04

Single Resolution Board — Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank, AS

3

2019/C 50/05

Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A.

3

European Data Protection Supervisor

2019/C 50/06

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a new Regulation on the Visa Information System

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Investment Bank |
| 2019/C 50/07 | Call for proposals — The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme | 9 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 50/08 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2019/C 50/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy) (
  1
  ) | 13 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Investment Bank

2019/C 50/07

Call for proposals — The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme

9

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 50/08

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

11

2019/C 50/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy) (
  1
  )

1

13

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9248 — Sumitomo/Mahindra/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/01)

On 30 January 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 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 32019M9248. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9248. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/02)

On 31 January 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 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 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 32019M9240. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9240. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 February 2019

(2019/C 50/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1345 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4636 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4730 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1357 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 136,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7253 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,809 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 319,29 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3022 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7399 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,9706 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5954 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5050 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9019 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6779 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5385 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 276,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,4673 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6520 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4124 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 883,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6200 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,231 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,8990 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,436 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2198 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,7393 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,0855 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1345

JPY

Japanese yen

124,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4636

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87750

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4730

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1357

ISK

Iceland króna

136,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7253

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,809

HUF

Hungarian forint

319,29

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3022

RON

Romanian leu

4,7399

TRY

Turkish lira

5,9706

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5954

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5050

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9019

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6779

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5385

KRW

South Korean won

1 276,31

ZAR

South African rand

15,4673

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6520

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4124

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 883,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6200

PHP

Philippine peso

59,231

RUB

Russian rouble

74,8990

THB

Thai baht

35,436

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2198

MXN

Mexican peso

21,7393

INR

Indian rupee

81,0855

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/3

---

SINGLE RESOLUTION BOARD

Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank, AS

(2019/C 50/04)

On 23 February 2018, the Single Resolution Board decided not to place ABLV Bank, AS under resolution. This decision was based on the conclusion that the condition of Article 18(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) was not met. The main elements of this decision are as follows:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 23 February 2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision No | SRB/EES/2018/09 |
| Addressee | Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija |
| Institution | ABLV Bank, AS |
| Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power | No |
| Resolution action | No |
| Fund aid | No |

Date of adoption of the decision

23 February 2018

Decision No

SRB/EES/2018/09

Addressee

Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Institution

ABLV Bank, AS

Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power

No

Resolution action

No

Fund aid

No

More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official website: https://srb.europa.eu/en/content/ablv

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.

---

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/3

---

Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A.

(2019/C 50/05)

On 23 February 2018, the Single Resolution Board decided not to place ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A. under resolution. This decision was based on the conclusion that the condition of Article 18(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) was not met. The main elements of this decision are as follows:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 23 February 2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision No | SRB/EES/2018/10 |
| Addressee | Commission du Surveillance du Secteur Financier |
| Institution | ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A. |
| Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power | No |
| Resolution action | No |
| Fund aid | No |

Date of adoption of the decision

23 February 2018

Decision No

SRB/EES/2018/10

Addressee

Commission du Surveillance du Secteur Financier

Institution

ABLV Bank Luxembourg S.A.

Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power

No

Resolution action

No

Fund aid

No

More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official website: https://srb.europa.eu/en/content/ablv

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/4

---

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a new Regulation on the Visa Information System

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2019/C 50/06)

In order to enhance security and improve the EU external borders management, the Commission adopted a Proposal which would upgrade the Visa Information System (‘VIS’), the EU centralised database that contains information about persons applying for a Schengen visa.

In particular, the Proposal provides for (a) the lowering of the fingerprint age for child applicants for a short stay visa from 12 years to 6 years; (b) the centralisation at EU level of data related to all holders of long stay visas and residence permits; and (c) the cross-check of visa applications against other EU information systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.

The EDPS stresses that biometric data such as fingerprints are highly sensitive. Their collection and use should be subject to a strict necessity analysis before deciding to store them in a database where a large number of persons will have their personal data processed. This is even more critical when it concerns fingerprints of children who are particularly vulnerable members of our society and therefore deserve special protection.

The EDPS recognises that strengthening the prevention and fight against children right's abuses such as trafficking is of utmost importance. Nevertheless, he notes that it remains unclear whether or to what extent the child trafficking is rooted in or amplified by the mis- or non-identification of children entering the EU territory on the basis of a visa. Should further elements be provided in support of this claim, the EDPS stresses the importance of ensuring that fingerprints of children would only be used when it is in the best interest of the child. Additionally, appropriate safeguards should be included in the Proposal

Furthermore, the EDPS notes that by including data on all holders of long stay visas and residence permits in the VIS, the Proposal would include the only category of third country nationals that are not currently covered by any of the EU large-scale systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. In the context of the proposed interoperability of EU large-scale systems, the Proposal would contribute to the establishment of an EU centralised network giving access to a considerable amount of information about all third-country nationals that have crossed or are considering crossing the EU borders (i.e. millions of people). He notes that there are two objectives of centralising data related to long stay visas and residence permits: (a) to ascertain the authenticity of a document and the legitimate relation with its holder; and (b) to facilitate exchange of information on individuals whose visa request has been refused for security grounds. In this context, he considers that harmonising secure documents should be further investigated and that data stored in the VIS should be limited to individuals whose long stay visa or residence permit has been refused on security grounds.

Finally, the Proposal provides for the comparison of data stored in the VIS with data stored in other systems built and used so far for purposes other than migration. In particular, the data of visa applicants would be compared with data collected and stored for police and judicial cooperation purposes. In line with his concerns about the increasing trend to blur the boundaries between migration management and fight against crime and terrorism, the EDPS notes that the Proposal does not determine clearly how and to which extent police and judicial information has to be taken into consideration in the visa issuance decision making process. He recommends to clarify in the Proposal the purpose of the comparison of the VIS data with police and judicial information as well as the procedure and conditions applicable as regards the outcome of such comparison. He also recommends to ensure in the Proposal that only police and judicial information that are legally part of the visa issuance decision-making process would be accessible to visa authorities.

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.1.   Background

| 1. | On 6 April 2016, the Commission adopted a Communication Stronger and Smarter Information Systems for Borders and Security (1) to launch a discussion on the shortcomings in the functionalities of existing systems for border management and internal security in the European Union in order to optimise their performance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | On 17 June 2016, the Commission set up a high-level expert group on information systems and interoperability (‘HLEG’), which comprised experts in the field of information systems and interoperability, nominated by Member States, Schengen associated countries, and EU agencies and bodies. The objective of the expert group was to contribute to an overall strategic vision on how to make the management and use of data for both border management and security more effective and efficient, in full compliance with fundamental rights, and to identify solutions to implement improvements (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The HLEG presented its recommendations in its final report in May 2017 (3). With regard to the VIS, the HLEG made several recommendations, inter alia:






  — | to extend the scope of the VIS to store long-stay visas and residence documents, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

to extend the scope of the VIS to store long-stay visas and residence documents,

| — | to improve access for law enforcement authorities while respecting the highest data protection standards, |
| --- | --- |

—

to improve access for law enforcement authorities while respecting the highest data protection standards,

| — | to improve the data quality in the system, in particular the quality of facial images to allow multimodal searches using biometrics, |
| --- | --- |

—

to improve the data quality in the system, in particular the quality of facial images to allow multimodal searches using biometrics,

| — | to lower the fingerprinting age for children, to respond to concerns of human trafficking involving children and child abductions, and irregular migration involving minors, |
| --- | --- |

—

to lower the fingerprinting age for children, to respond to concerns of human trafficking involving children and child abductions, and irregular migration involving minors,

| — | to improve VIS capacity in terms of producing statistics and reports relevant for migratory trends and phenomena (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

to improve VIS capacity in terms of producing statistics and reports relevant for migratory trends and phenomena (4).

| 4. | On 17 August 2017, the Commission launched a public consultation on lowering the fingerprinting age for children in the visa procedure from twelve years to six years (5). On 17 November 2017, the Commission launched another public consultation on extending the scope of the Visa Information System (‘VIS’) to include data on long stay visas and residence documents (6). The EDPS participated in both public consultations and issued two statements (7). |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | On 15 May 2018, the Commission published a proposal (hereinafter ‘the Proposal’) for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending:






  — | Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 (‘VIS Regulation’), |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

—

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 (‘VIS Regulation’),

| — | Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (‘Visa Code’), |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (‘Visa Code’),

| — | Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 (‘EES Regulation’), |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 (‘EES Regulation’),

| — | Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (‘Schengen Border Code’), |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (‘Schengen Border Code’),

| — | Regulation XX/2018 (Interoperability Regulation), |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation XX/2018 (Interoperability Regulation),

| — | and Decision 2004/512/EC (‘VIS Decision’), |
| --- | --- |

—

and Decision 2004/512/EC (‘VIS Decision’),

| — | and repealing Council Decision 2008/633/JHA (‘Law enforcement access Decision’). |
| --- | --- |

—

and repealing Council Decision 2008/633/JHA (‘Law enforcement access Decision’).

| 6. | The EDPS has been invited to contribute to the two public consultations launched by the Commission (see supra point 4). Since the Proposal relies to a major extent on the processing of personal data, he wonders why he hasn't been consulted on it by the Commission, either informally or formally. |
| --- | --- |

6.

1.2.   Objectives of the Proposals

| 7. | The Proposal aims at improving security within the Union and its borders and at facilitating the management of the Schengen external borders. In particular, the Proposal aims to improve the visa processing, expand the use of the VIS for new categories of data, make full use of the interoperability instruments, improve the data quality and enhance the VIS system. |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | To this end, the Proposal introduces the possibilities to:






  — | Include long stay visas and residence permits in the VIS, in order to:






  — | ascertain the authenticity and the validity of the document and the legitimate relation with the holder, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.

—

Include long stay visas and residence permits in the VIS, in order to:

—

ascertain the authenticity and the validity of the document and the legitimate relation with the holder,

| — | facilitate the exchange of information between Members States enabling them to check whether the person is not a threat to the security of the Member States before or when the person reaches the external border. |
| --- | --- |

—

facilitate the exchange of information between Members States enabling them to check whether the person is not a threat to the security of the Member States before or when the person reaches the external border.

| — | Lower the fingerprint age for child applicants for a short stay visa from 12 years to 6 years in order to verify the identity of a child holding a visa at the border and to contribute to the fight against human trafficking. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lower the fingerprint age for child applicants for a short stay visa from 12 years to 6 years in order to verify the identity of a child holding a visa at the border and to contribute to the fight against human trafficking.

| — | Check all visa applications recorded in the VIS against all other EU information systems in the area of freedom, security and justice using interoperability to increase security checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Check all visa applications recorded in the VIS against all other EU information systems in the area of freedom, security and justice using interoperability to increase security checks.

| — | Store a copy of the bio-page of the applicants travel document in the VIS as evidence to support procedure to return irregular migrants to their countries of origin in case travel documents are missing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Store a copy of the bio-page of the applicants travel document in the VIS as evidence to support procedure to return irregular migrants to their countries of origin in case travel documents are missing.

| — | Use fingerprints stored in the VIS for entering alerts on missing persons in the Schengen Information System (SIS). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use fingerprints stored in the VIS for entering alerts on missing persons in the Schengen Information System (SIS).

| 9. | The present opinion focuses on issues that have an impact of the individuals' fundamental right to data protection. The EDPS notes that the Fundamental Rights Agency has also issued an opinion on the revised Visa Information System and its fundamental rights implications (8). |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | To facilitate the reading and the understanding of the Proposal, which amends several existing legislative texts, the present opinion will use the numbering of articles as introduced or amended by the Proposal in the existing legal texts. |
| --- | --- |

10.

4.   CONCLUSIONS

| 93. | The EDPS stresses that biometric data such as fingerprints are highly sensitive. Their collection and use should be subject to a strict necessity analysis before deciding to store them in a database where a large number of persons will have their personal data processed. This is even more critical when it concerns fingerprints of children who are particularly vulnerable members of our society and therefore deserve special protection. |
| --- | --- |

93.

| 94. | The EDPS recognises that strengthening the prevention and fight against children right's abuses such as trafficking is of utmost importance. Nevertheless, he notes that it remains unclear whether or to what extent the child trafficking is rooted in or amplified by the mis- or non-identification of children entering the EU territory on the basis of a visa. |
| --- | --- |

94.

| 95. | Should further elements be provided in support of this claim, the EDPS stresses the importance to ensure that fingerprints of the children will be used only when it is in the best interest of the child in a specific case. He therefore recommends to introduce in the Proposal a specific provision on the fingerprints of children to limit their processing to the purposes of:






  — | verifying the child's identity in the visa application procedure and at the external borders, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

95.

—

verifying the child's identity in the visa application procedure and at the external borders, and

| — | contributing to the prevention and fight against children's right abuse only in a specific case. |
| --- | --- |

—

contributing to the prevention and fight against children's right abuse only in a specific case.

In particular as regards the access by law enforcement authorities, the EDPS recommends to ensure that:

| — | such access must be necessary for the purpose of the prevention, detection or investigation of a child trafficking case, |
| --- | --- |

—

such access must be necessary for the purpose of the prevention, detection or investigation of a child trafficking case,

| — | access is necessary in a specific case, |
| --- | --- |

—

access is necessary in a specific case,

| — | a prior search in the relevant national databases and in the specific systems at Union level has been unsuccessful, |
| --- | --- |

—

a prior search in the relevant national databases and in the specific systems at Union level has been unsuccessful,

| — | reasonable grounds exist to consider that the consultation of the VIS will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of the child trafficking case in question, and |
| --- | --- |

—

reasonable grounds exist to consider that the consultation of the VIS will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of the child trafficking case in question, and

| — | the identification is in the best interest of the child. |
| --- | --- |

—

the identification is in the best interest of the child.

| 96. | The EDPS notes that by including data on all holders of long stay visas and residence permits in the VIS, the Proposal would include the only category of third country nationals that are not currently covered by any of the EU large-scale systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. In the context of the proposed interoperability of EU large-scale systems, the Proposal would contribute to the establishment of an EU centralised network giving access to a considerable amount of information about all third-country nationals that have crossed or are considering crossing the EU borders (i.e. millions of people). Given the two-fold objective for centralising data related to long stay visas and residence permits: (a) to ascertain the authenticity of a document and the legitimate relation with its holder; and (b) to facilitate exchange of information on individuals whose visa request has been refused for security grounds, the EDPS considers that the option of harmonising secure documents related to long stay visas and residence permits should be further investigated and that the information stored in the VIS should be limited to individuals:






  — | whose data correspond to data stored in another system or where doubts remain concerning their identity, |
| --- | --- | --- |

96.

—

whose data correspond to data stored in another system or where doubts remain concerning their identity,

| — | whose request for a long stay visa or a residence permit has been refused because they have been considered to pose a threat to public policy, internal security or to public health or they have presented documents which were fraudulently acquired or falsified or tampered with. |
| --- | --- |

—

whose request for a long stay visa or a residence permit has been refused because they have been considered to pose a threat to public policy, internal security or to public health or they have presented documents which were fraudulently acquired or falsified or tampered with.

| 97. | As regards the comparison of data stored in the VIS with data stored in other systems, the EDPS recommends to include in the Proposal guarantees that only information stored in the ECRIS-TCN related to terrorist and other serious criminal offences would be communicated to the central authority. One possible way to achieve this could be that the central authority is not informed about the hit but a notification is automatically sent to the competent authority of the Member State that entered the data that triggered the hit. The competent authority of the Member State would then, where relevant, inform the central authority. Alternatively, the possibility to consult the ECRIS-TCN system should be deleted. |
| --- | --- |

97.

| 98. | The EDPS also recommends to clarify in the Proposal the purpose of the comparison of the VIS data with Europol data, as well as the procedure and conditions applicable as regards the outcome of such comparison. Furthermore, he considers that the Proposal should be clarified regarding the types of SIS alerts to be taken into account in the visa issuance procedure and recommends to ensure in the Proposal that only alerts that are legally part of the visa issuance decision-making process would produce a hit accessible by visa authorities. |
| --- | --- |

98.

| 99. | Finally, beyond the general comments and key issues identified above, the EDPS has additional recommendations related to the following aspects of the Proposals:






  — | Categories of VIS data compared with data recorded in other systems, |
| --- | --- | --- |

99.

—

Categories of VIS data compared with data recorded in other systems,

| — | Specific categories of visa applicants, |
| --- | --- |

—

Specific categories of visa applicants,

| — | Definition of central authorities, |
| --- | --- |

—

Definition of central authorities,

| — | Use of VIS data to enter a SIS alert on missing persons, |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of VIS data to enter a SIS alert on missing persons,

| — | Verifications in case of a hit, |
| --- | --- |

—

Verifications in case of a hit,

| — | Access for law enforcement purposes, |
| --- | --- |

—

Access for law enforcement purposes,

| — | Statistics, |
| --- | --- |

—

Statistics,

| — | Use of anonymised data for testing purposes, |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of anonymised data for testing purposes,

| — | Data quality monitoring, |
| --- | --- |

—

Data quality monitoring,

| — | Supervision of the VIS. |
| --- | --- |

—

Supervision of the VIS.

| 100. | The EDPS remains available to provide further advice on the Proposal, also in relation to any delegated or implementing act adopted pursuant to the proposed Regulations which might have an impact on the processing of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

100.

Brussels, 12 December 2018.

Giovanni BUTTARELLI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2016/20160406_3_en

1

(2)  C(2016) 3780 final, Commission Decision of 17.6.2016 setting up the High Level Expert Group on Information Systems and Interoperability.

2

(3)  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=32600&no=1

3

(4)  Ibidem, p. 19.

4

Ibidem

(5)  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/public-consultation-lowering-fingerprinting-age-children-visa-procedure-12-years-6-years_en

5

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/consultation-extending-scope-visa-information-system-vis-include-data-long-stay-visas-and_en

6

(7)  EDPS response to the Commission public consultation on extending the scope of the Visa Information System (VIS) to include data on long stay visas and residence documents, available at: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/18-02-09_formal_comments_vis_consultation_long_stay_visas_residence_documents_en.pdf and EDPS formal comments in response to the Commission public consultation on lowering the fingerprinting age for children in the visa procedure from 12 to 6 years old, available at: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17-11-09_formal_comments_2017-0809_en.pdf

7

(8)  Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency on the revised Visa Information System and its fundamental rights implications, 30 August 2018, available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2018/visa-system

8

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Investment Bank

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/9

---

Call for proposals

The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme

(2019/C 50/07)

The Knowledge Programme of the European Investment Bank Institute channels its research grants through different schemes, one of which is:

| — | EIBURS, the EIB University Research Sponsorship Programme |
| --- | --- |

—

EIBURS, the EIB University Research Sponsorship Programme

EIBURS provides grants to university departments or research centres associated with universities in the EU, candidate or potential candidate countries working on research topics of major interest to the Bank. EIBURS sponsorships – of up to EUR 100 000 per year for a period of three years – are awarded through a competitive process to interested university departments or research centres with recognised expertise in the selected area. Successful proposals entail the delivery of a variety of outputs that will be the subject of a contractual agreement with the European Investment Bank.

For the academic year 2019/2020, the EIBURS programme is seeking proposals on a new research theme:

‘Building the future of inclusive finance: the role of Fintechs and digitalisation’

While the intensity of the income inequality debate has somewhat receded in recent years, the issue itself is still highly relevant. Persistent and large income disparities threaten the social fabric of European society and require an appropriate policy response. A proper, long-term solution would be providing opportunities to the most deprived members of society to realise their demonstrated entrepreneurial ambitions. Inclusive Finance, that is providing financial and non-financial products and services to unemployed people or clients from other vulnerable groups, is a policy instrument intended to alleviate poverty and reduce income inequality. However, the inclusive finance sector has come under increased scrutiny and has been criticised for a number of reasons: the outreach has stagnated and loan pricing is considered often too high to address effectively any policy concerns related to poverty alleviation.

Therefore, this research project aims to investigate the potential of technological and financial innovation to increase the efficiency of the inclusive finance sector. Research proposals should contain a strategy to address the following elements:

| 1. | The disruptive potential of technological and financial innovation







  — | A broad, comprehensive and exhaustive overview of the potential of technological and financial innovations to disrupt inclusive finance mechanisms and improve the ability of the sector to contribute to the achievement of social policy targets. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The disruptive potential of technological and financial innovation

The disruptive potential of technological and financial innovation

—

A broad, comprehensive and exhaustive overview of the potential of technological and financial innovations to disrupt inclusive finance mechanisms and improve the ability of the sector to contribute to the achievement of social policy targets.

| — | We encourage special focus on the ability of financial and technological innovation to improve the outreach of Financial Institutions (FIs) to specific social policy target groups, such as female entrepreneurs, migrants, financially disenfranchised individuals, the rural population and social enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

—

We encourage special focus on the ability of financial and technological innovation to improve the outreach of Financial Institutions (FIs) to specific social policy target groups, such as female entrepreneurs, migrants, financially disenfranchised individuals, the rural population and social enterprises.

| — | Specific topics that need to be addressed: how would the use of Fintechs/financial innovations affect:






  — | Client communication interaction |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Specific topics that need to be addressed: how would the use of Fintechs/financial innovations affect:

—

Client communication interaction

| — | Training and mentoring |
| --- | --- |

—

Training and mentoring

| — | Loan pricing |
| --- | --- |

—

Loan pricing

| — | Screening process |
| --- | --- |

—

Screening process

| — | Loan application procedure |
| --- | --- |

—

Loan application procedure

| — | Loan recovery |
| --- | --- |

—

Loan recovery

| — | Financial profitability |
| --- | --- |

—

Financial profitability

| — | Better assessment of social return: to increase visibility |
| --- | --- |

—

Better assessment of social return: to increase visibility

| 2. | The use of financial innovations (Fintechs) in the inclusive finance sector







  — | A follow-up section would ideally provide empirical documentation of the areas of disruption identified under part 1: history, evolution and current state of affairs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The use of financial innovations (Fintechs) in the inclusive finance sector

The use of financial innovations (Fintechs) in the inclusive finance sector

—

A follow-up section would ideally provide empirical documentation of the areas of disruption identified under part 1: history, evolution and current state of affairs.

| — | A comparative analysis of different European regions/countries is desirable. |
| --- | --- |

—

A comparative analysis of different European regions/countries is desirable.

| — | Documentation of the current state of digitalisation in FIs operating in the microfinance, social and immigrant entrepreneurship space. |
| --- | --- |

—

Documentation of the current state of digitalisation in FIs operating in the microfinance, social and immigrant entrepreneurship space.

| — | A series of case studies that illustrate the disruptive mechanisms documented under part 1. |
| --- | --- |

—

A series of case studies that illustrate the disruptive mechanisms documented under part 1.

| 3. | Evidence on the causal effect of financial innovations: the efficiency of the inclusive finance sector in contributing to the achievement of social policy targets







  — | Based on the theorised mechanisms listed in part 1 and the data collected and documented in part 2, the research proposal should outline a methodology to quantify the impact of technological or financial innovations on a policy target relevant to the sector, e.g. access to credit of financially vulnerable groups, number of migrant entrepreneurs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Evidence on the causal effect of financial innovations: the efficiency of the inclusive finance sector in contributing to the achievement of social policy targets

Evidence on the causal effect of financial innovations: the efficiency of the inclusive finance sector in contributing to the achievement of social policy targets

—

Based on the theorised mechanisms listed in part 1 and the data collected and documented in part 2, the research proposal should outline a methodology to quantify the impact of technological or financial innovations on a policy target relevant to the sector, e.g. access to credit of financially vulnerable groups, number of migrant entrepreneurs.

e.g.

migrant entrepreneurs

| — | The empirical methodology can follow either a micro or a macro approach (or both), but should aim to identify a causal effect. |
| --- | --- |

—

The empirical methodology can follow either a micro or a macro approach (or both), but should aim to identify a causal effect.

causal

The use of financial innovations in the inclusive finance sector being a very relevant topic to the EIB Group is confirmed by the strong involvement of the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund and the European Investment Bank Institute in this segment. The EIB Group is well placed to respond to the rapidly changing market environment – including new entrants such as Fintechs – and to achieve the important social dimensions of these activities more efficiently.

Proposals should be submitted in English by 15 April 2019 24.00 (CET). Proposals submitted after this date will not be considered. Proposals should be sent by email to:

Events.EIBInstitute@eib.org

For more exhaustive information on the EIBURS selection process and on the EIB Institute, please visit: http://institute.eib.org/

For more exhaustive information on the EIBURS

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | The Carlyle Group L.P. (US), |
| --- | --- |

—

The Carlyle Group L.P. (US),

| — | StandardAero Holding Corp. (US, ‘StandardAero’), currently controlled by Veritas Capital (US). |
| --- | --- |

—

StandardAero Holding Corp. (US, ‘StandardAero’), currently controlled by Veritas Capital (US).

The Carlyle Group acquires – indirectly through its wholly-owned subsidiary Dynasty Acquisition Co., Inc. – within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of StandardAero.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

—   for The Carlyle Group L.P.: a global alternative asset manager,

—   for StandardAero: an independent provider of maintenance, repair and overhaul (‘MRO’) services to engine original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’), and to business aviation, commercial aviation, military and industrial power owners and operators.

3.

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.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero

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 |

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’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---

| 8.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 50/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | E.ON SE (‘E.ON’, Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

E.ON SE (‘E.ON’, Germany),

| — | Innogy SE (‘Innogy’, Germany), currently controlled by RWE. |
| --- | --- |

—

Innogy SE (‘Innogy’, Germany), currently controlled by RWE.

E.ON acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the distribution and consumer solutions business and certain electricity generation assets of Innogy. In a first step, E.ON will acquire the whole of Innogy. In a second step, E.ON will carve-out the majority of Innogy’s renewable electricity generation business, gas storage business and participation in Kärnter Energieholding Beteiligungs GmbH and transfer these assets back to RWE.

The concentration is part of a complex asset swap between RWE and E.ON. In a separate case (Case M.8871), on 22 January 2019, RWE notified to the Commission a proposed acquisition of sole control over certain electricity production assets of E.ON. RWE will also obtain approximately a 16,7 % shareholding in E.ON.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | E.ON is an energy company active across the supply chain, including generation, wholesale supply, transmission, distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). E.ON is active in several European countries, including Sweden, Romania, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK. |
| --- | --- |

—

E.ON is an energy company active across the supply chain, including generation, wholesale supply, transmission, distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). E.ON is active in several European countries, including Sweden, Romania, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK.

| — | Innogy, a wholly subsidiary of RWE, is an energy company active across the supply chain, including distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). Innogy is active in several European countries, including Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK. |
| --- | --- |

—

Innogy, a wholly subsidiary of RWE, is an energy company active across the supply chain, including distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). Innogy is active in several European countries, including Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK.

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.

Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy

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 |

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’).

1

---