do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9286 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Wroclaw Site) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, industrial building, investment company, light industry, logistics, merger control, real estate business, storage








C_2019079EN.01001001.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9286 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Wroclaw Site)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 79/06)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom),










—


Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada).




SEGRO and PSPIB acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the Wroclaw Site.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries,
—   for PSPIB: investment of net contributions to the pension funds of the federal Public Service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Reserve Force. It manages a diversified global portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt,
—   for the Wroclaw Site: a partly pre-let warehouse located in Wroclaw, Poland, which is currently under development.


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.9286 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Wroclaw Site
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.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/353 of 4 March 2019 amending for the 295th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








L_2019064EN.01000501.xml










5.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 64/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/353
of 4 March 2019
         
amending for the 295th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 28 February 2019, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 4 March 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading ‘Natural persons’:


            ‘Hamza Usama Muhammad bin Laden. Date of birth: 9.5.1989. Place of birth: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Nationality: Saudi Arabian. Other information: (a) Son of Usama bin Laden (deceased); (b) Announced by Aiman Muhammed Rabi al-Zawahiri as an official member of Al-Qaida. Has called for followers of Al-Qaida to commit terror attacks. Is seen as the most probable successor of al-Zawahiri. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 28.2.2019.’
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 March 2019 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2019079EN.01000501.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/5






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 March 2019
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 March 2019
(2019/C 79/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1383 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4613 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85968 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5003 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1363 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7268 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,636 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,06 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3096 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7431 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1230 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6000 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4971 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9344 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6656 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5396 




KRW


South Korean won


1 282,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1426 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6332 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4320 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 067,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6374 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,986 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,9928 




THB


Thai baht


36,113 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3037 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9940 




INR


Indian rupee


80,6950 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-208/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 4 March 2019 — NK v Ms and AS
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: architecture, consumer protection, single-family housing, termination of a contract, town-planning profession








C_2019172EN.01001901.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz (Austria) lodged on 4 March 2019 — NK v Ms and AS
(Case C-208/19)
(2019/C 172/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NK

Defendants: Ms and AS

Questions referred







1.


Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required (only) to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house, including the preparation of plans, a contract ‘for the construction of new buildings’ within the meaning of Article 3(3)(f) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house in accordance with the specifications and wishes of his clients and, in this context, is required to draw up plans, a contract for the supply of ‘goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised’ within the meaning of Article 16(c) and Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/83?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.
Case T-140/19: Action brought on 4 March 2019 — ZU v Commission
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, promotion, staff assessment








C_2019155EN.01004701.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/47






Action brought on 4 March 2019 — ZU v Commission
(Case T-140/19)
(2019/C 155/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, first, the applicant’s appraisal report of 25 April 2018;










—


annul second, the decision of non-promotion of 18 June 2018;










—


annul, third, the decision of 28 May 2018, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance;










—


annul, fourth, in so far as necessary, decision No R/400/18 of 21 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against his appraisal report and the decision of non-promotion;










—


annul, fifth, in so far as necessary, decision No R/461/18 of 21 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision rejecting his request for assistance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, in support of the applicant’s claim for annulment of the decision rejecting his request for assistance, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the duty of care, infringement of the principle of good administration, and misuse of power.










2.


Second plea in law, in support of the applicant’s claim for annulment of his appraisal report and the decision of non-promotion, alleging manifest error of assessment, omission of relevant facts and misuse of powers.
Case T-139/19: Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, financial supervision, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade licence








C_2019139EN.01010601.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/106






Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
(Case T-139/19)
(2019/C 139/108)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the contested decision void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision of the applicant pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) SSMR. (1)











—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant pursuant to Articles 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an erroneous assumption of the ECB that it no longer has competence for supervision of the applicant following the withdrawal of its licence agreement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB is obliged to take over supervision as it has to maintain high supervisory standards.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy and of the principle of equality of arms.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a lack of appropriate reasoning.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging a violation of the nemo auditor principle.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 concerning specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.
Case T-141/19: Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council
Date: 2019-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air quality, biomass, energy consumption, energy saving, environmental law, environmental protection, polluter pays principle, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, renewable resources








C_2019148EN.01006001.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/60






Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-141/19)
(2019/C 148/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Peter Sabo (Tulčik, Slovakia) and six other applicants (represented by: R. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should declare void those provisions of the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) that allow for energy from forest biomass to count towards the Article 29(1) purposes: namely (a) contributing towards the Collective Target for 2030; (b) measuring compliance with renewable energy obligations, and (c) eligibility for financial support.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates Art 191 TFEU because it fails to preserve, protect or improve the quality of the environment, to protect human health, or to use natural resources prudently or rationally. It does not aim at a high level of environmental protection, it fails to rectify damage at source and fails to apply the precautionary principle or make the polluter pay. It also ignores available scientific data on the climate change impacts of burning forest biomass.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates numerous rights of the applicants (recognized by Articles 7, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24, 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) that are universal and must be respected for both EU and non-EU applicants. These infringements cannot possibly be justified, because the infringing provisions of the contested Directive are not necessary or rationally connected to the environmental protection objectives of the Union, to which they run contrary.






(1)  Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82).