do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9218 — CVC Capital Partners/K3) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, electrical engineering, heating, investment company, merger control, plumbing equipment, retail selling, wholesale selling








C_2019018EN.01004001.xml










15.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/40






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9218 — CVC Capital Partners/K3)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 18/06)

1.   
On 21 December 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:






—


CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’) (Luxembourg),










—


Ahlsell AB (‘K3’) (Sweden).




CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Ahlsell AB.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 11 December 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for undertaking CVC: CVC and/or its subsidiaries manages investment funds and platforms,
—   for undertaking Ahlsell AB (K3): wholesale and retail distribution of installation products that fall into the following categories: heating, ventilation, air conditioning and plumbing, electrical, and tools and suppplies.


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.9218 — CVC Capital Partners/K3
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 C-25/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Corporis Sp. z o.o., established in Bielsko-Biała v Gefion Insurance A/S, established in Copenhagen
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, insurance company, judicial proceedings, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2019164EN.01001101.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Corporis Sp. z o.o., established in Bielsko-Biała v Gefion Insurance A/S, established in Copenhagen
(Case C-25/19)
(2019/C 164/12)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corporis Sp. z o.o., established in Bielsko-Biała

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S, established in Copenhagen

Question referred

Should Article 152(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 151, of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the representation of a non-life insurance undertaking by an appointed representative includes the receipt of a document which initiates court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident?


(1)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).
Case C-26/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena (Italy) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Azienda USL di Modena v Comune di Sassuolo
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, health care, health service, local tax, property leasing, public limited company, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2019164EN.01001102.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena (Italy) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Azienda USL di Modena v Comune di Sassuolo
(Case C-26/19)
(2019/C 164/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Azienda USL di Modena

Defendant: Comune di Sassuolo

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23 [of 14 March 2011], which allows Italian national health service bodies an exemption from IMU [single municipal tax] for real estate which they own and whose intended purpose is exclusively the performance of statutory tasks, consistent with Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’, if that national legislation is interpreted as meaning that the tax advantage is also available to an AUSL [a local public body providing healthcare services] which leased a property to a public-private commercial company (51 % owned by that body) which, in that property, provides healthcare services in competition with other hospitals that are entirely privately owned, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market?










2.


Does the Italian tax ruling provided for by Article 11 of Law No 212 [of 27 July 2000] — which precludes an interpretation of Article 9(8) of Legislative Decree No 23, by analogy with the case-law of the Italian Supreme Court concerning the ICI [Municipal Tax on Immovable Property], to the effect that the IMU exemption does not apply to an AUSL when the property is used by a public limited company in which that public body also has a holding and which provides healthcare services there in competition with other entirely privately owned commercial companies which also provide healthcare services, thus giving rise to a tax advantage which may be classified as State aid that distorts the rules of the free market — comply with the Treaty, specifically Article 107 TFEU, which prohibits State aid ‘in any form’?
Case T-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, bank, banking supervision, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, trade licence








C_2019072EN.01004701.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/47






Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
(Case T-27/19)
(2019/C 72/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank;










—


order the Defendant to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eleven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.
Case C-20/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 January 2019 — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich-Versicherungs AG
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, insurance contract, life assurance, termination of a contract








C_2019155EN.01001901.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 January 2019 — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich-Versicherungs AG
(Case C-20/19)
(2019/C 155/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: kunsthaus muerz gmbh

Defendant: Zürich-Versicherungs AG

Question referred

Is Directive 2002/83/EC (1) — in particular Article 35 and Article 36 — to be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, irrespective of a (correct) notice before conclusion of the contract regarding the right of cancellation, the cancellation period comes to an end within 30 days after the contract has been concluded, (even) if the policy holder is not a consumer?


(1)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2019 on the proposal for a Council decision amending the Statute of the European Investment Bank (13166/2018 — C8-0464/2018 — 2018/0811(CNS))
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European Investment Bank, United Kingdom, appointment of members, board of directors, decision-making body (EU), majority voting, protocol to an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020411EN.01029101.xml










27.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 411/291






P8_TA(2019)0009
Amendment of the European Investment Bank Statute *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 January 2019 on the proposal for a Council decision amending the Statute of the European Investment Bank (13166/2018 — C8-0464/2018 — 2018/0811(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2020/C 411/36)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the proposal of the European Investment Bank to the Council to amend the Statute of the European Investment Bank (13166/2018),










—


having regard to Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0464/2018),










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0476/2018),












1.


Approves the proposal;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, the European Investment Bank and the national parliaments.
Case T-111/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark COMPUTER MARKET — Absolute ground for refusal — Late filing of the notice of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01004901.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/49






Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)
(Case T-111/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark COMPUTER MARKET - Absolute ground for refusal - Late filing of the notice of appeal - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(1)(b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)))
(2019/C 93/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Computer Market (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Dimitrova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 (Case R 1778/2016-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign COMPUTER MARKET as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Computer Market to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-489/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from theBudapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Single area payment application — Criteria — Lawful user of agricultural land)
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, farmers' income, financial aid, land use, single payment scheme, terms for aid








C_2019172EN.01000501.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/5






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter
(Case C-489/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct support schemes - Single payment scheme - Single area payment application - Criteria - Lawful user of agricultural land)
(2019/C 172/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Farmland Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 17 July 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Case T-31/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA
Date: 2019-01-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, principle of legal certainty, promotion, servant (EU)








C_2019103EN.01005001.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/50






Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA
(Case T-31/19)
(2019/C 103/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included;










—


if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision;










—


order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the 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 violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.