do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9196 — Marsh &amp; Mclennan Companies/Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, insurance, merger control, pension fund, risk management








C_2019053EN.01000501.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9196 — Marsh & Mclennan Companies/Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 53/05)

1.   
On 1 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:






—


Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc (‘MMC’, USA),










—


Jardine Lloyd Thompson plc (‘JLT’, UK),




MMC acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of JLT.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 18 September 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   MMC: MMC is a global professionl services firm offering clients advice and solutions in the areas of risk, strategy and people. MMC consists of four key lines of business operated by the following entities (i) Marsh, active in insurance broking and risk management solutions; (ii) Guy Carpenter, active in reinsurance and capital strategies; (iii) Mercer, active in health, wealth and career consulting; and (iv) Oliver Wyman, a strategy, economic and brand consultancy.
—   JLT: JLT is a publicly listed company incorporated in 1997. JLT offers risk management, insurance broking and employee benefit solutions globally.


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.   
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.9196 — Marsh & Mclennan Companies/Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group
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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, plastics industry








C_2019115EN.01000101.xml










27.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 115/01)
On 11 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32019M9094. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-109/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, freedom of movement, freedom to provide services, national law, principle of legal certainty, public procurement, right of establishment, tendering








C_2019182EN.01001201.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
(Case C-109/19)
(2019/C 182/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus

Defendants: Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (Public Procurement Code), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure [whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender], even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9130 — Société Générale/Commerzbank EMC Business) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2019125EN.01000101.xml










4.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 125/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9130 — Société Générale/Commerzbank EMC Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 125/01)
On 11 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 32019M9130. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019053EN.01000201.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 February 2019
(2019/C 53/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1346 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4634 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87490 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4973 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1357 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7693 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,806 




HUF


Hungarian forint


318,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3064 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7485 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,9488 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6006 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5098 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9020 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6809 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5376 




KRW


South Korean won


1 273,96 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4417 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6527 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4075 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 844,69 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6173 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,149 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,8085 




THB


Thai baht


35,723 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2095 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6028 




INR


Indian rupee


80,8655 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-102/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, labelling, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, product designation








C_2019172EN.01001001.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-102/19)
(2019/C 172/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?










2.


May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9175 — Total/Chevron Denmark) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy production, energy supply, extraction of oil, gas industry, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2019053EN.01000401.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9175 — Total/Chevron Denmark)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 53/04)

1.   
On 1 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:






—


Total Holdings USA. Inc. (‘Total’) (United States of America),










—


Chevron Denmark Inc. (‘Chevron Denmark’) (United States of America), belonging to the Chevron Group.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Total is an international integrated energy producer and provider, engaged in every sector of the oil and gas industry, including upstream (hydrocarbons, development and production) and downstream (refining, petrochemicals, speciality chemicals, trading and shipping of crude oil and petroleum products and marketing). Total is also involved in the renewable energy and power generation sectors,










—


Chevron Denmark is a company active in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas originating from the Danish North Sea.






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.   
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.9175 — Total/Chevron Denmark
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’).
Case C-108/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, contract of carriage, electronic commerce, retail outlet, supply








C_2019172EN.01001002.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți
(Case C-108/19)
(2019/C 172/13)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Respondents: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

Question referred

In the context of the sale of goods through an online retail outlet, is Article 33 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as not applying in the situation where the customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the goods from the Member State of the supplier to his own Member State, in accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, and the goods are not transported on behalf of the supplier?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-614/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, access to the courts, appeal, foreign national, infringement of EU law, judicial proceedings, right to justice








C_2019172EN.01002601.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/26






Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-614/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/35)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product








C_2019053EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/3






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2019/C 53/03)
1.   As provided for in 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 (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Ammonium nitrate


Russia


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 280, 24.9.2014, p. 19).


25.9.2019






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-106/19: Action brought on 11 February 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, Netherlands, powers of the institutions (EU), seat of institution








C_2019112EN.01003801.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/38






Action brought on 11 February 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union, European Parliament
(Case C-106/19)
(2019/C 112/44)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, S. Fiorentino, C. Colelli, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 in so far as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency, published in Official Journal L 291 of 16 November 2018; (1)











—


order the Council and the Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is supported by two pleas in law, which allege:






—


infringement of Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Treaty on European Union. Infringement of Articles 114, 168(4)(c), 289 and 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: by naming Amsterdam as the seat of the EMA, the contested regulation merely reflects the choice made at the Council meeting of 20 November 2017 without any involvement on the part of the European Parliament. It follows, with regard to the adoption of the regulation, that, by not having been able to influence in any way the content of the decision, the Parliament was essentially divested of its prerogatives, which ought rather to have been fully respected, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties governing the legislative procedure chosen;










—


that the contested regulation is unlawful as a result of the unlawfulness of the decision of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17. Misuse of powers, through failure to investigate adequately and distortion of facts: if it were to be established that the Regulation may in fact only reflect the decision taken on 20 November 2017, and that the Parliament’s prerogatives had therefore not been infringed, then the regulation itself must be considered to be vitiated, indirectly, by the same defects which vitiate that decision and were previously criticised by the Italian Republic in the application that gave rise to Case C-59/18.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency (OJ 2018 L 291, p. 3).
Case C-101/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, labelling, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, product designation








C_2019172EN.01000901.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-101/19)
(2019/C 172/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?










2.


May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).