do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9211 — TransDigm Group/Esterline Technologies) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019158EN.01000101.xml










10.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9211 — TransDigm Group/Esterline Technologies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 158/01)
On 11 March 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 32019M9211. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-162/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, amendment of a law, cross-frontier data flow, legal basis, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, regulation of telecommunications, telephone charges, trans-European network








C_2019172EN.01003801.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/38






Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council
(Case T-162/19)
(2019/C 172/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain), and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment to be admissible;










—


annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);










—


order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-161/19, Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).
Case T-161/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet, amendment of a law, cross-frontier data flow, legal basis, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, regulation of telecommunications, telephone charges, trans-European network








C_2019172EN.01003701.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/37






Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council
(Case T-161/19)
(2019/C 172/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Telekom (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment to be admissible;










—


annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);










—


order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).
Case C-221/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: barring of penalties by limitation, criminal law, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, ruling








C_2019280EN.01001602.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Criminal proceedings against AV
(Case C-221/19)
(2019/C 280/22)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

Party to the main proceedings

AV

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, (1) which provides that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in other Member States, as provided for in paragraph 1, shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or reviewing previous convictions or any decision relating to their execution by the Member State conducting the new proceedings, be interpreted as meaning that interference for the purposes of that provision is to be taken to mean not only the inclusion in an aggregate sentence of a conviction handed down by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union but also the inclusion in the aggregate sentence of such a conviction which was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?










2.


In light of the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (2) which are laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) thereof and concern the principles of the exequatur procedure, and also in the light of Article 19(1) and (2) thereof — which provides that an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the issuing State and also by the executing State (paragraph 1); only the issuing State may decide on applications for review of the judgment imposing the sentence to be enforced under this Framework Decision (paragraph 2) — and of the first sentence of Article 17(1) thereof — which provides that the enforcement of a sentence is to be governed by the law of the executing State — is it possible to pass an aggregate sentence which would include the sentences imposed by a judgment delivered in a State of the European Union that was taken over for execution in another State of the European Union, together with a conviction handed down in the latter State, within the framework of the aggregate sentence?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27.
Case T-154/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — ZU v EEAS
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, allowances and expenses, financial management, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2019155EN.01005201.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/52






Action brought on 11 March 2019 — ZU v EEAS
(Case T-154/19)
(2019/C 155/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the EEAS of 30 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 27 July 2018, insofar as it implicitly rejects his statement of expenses of 26 February 2018;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations (inter alia, Articles 12a, 56 and 71 thereof) and infringement of Articles 31(1) and (2), 41(1) and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, violation of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, the principle of good administration and the principle of sound financial management (waste of EU resources), misuse of powers and concealing of evidence, breach of the rules governing the reimbursement of travel expenses, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, manifest error of assessment, violation of the duty of care, and omission of prima facie elements identified in the applicant’s complaint based on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019091EN.01000101.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 91/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 March 2019
(2019/C 91/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1222 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,72 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4600 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85905 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6316 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1324 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8733 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,641 




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,95 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3002 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7448 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1287 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5964 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5099 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8092 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6530 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5257 




KRW


South Korean won


1 275,60 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3022 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5451 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4122 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 068,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5916 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,706 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,5885 




THB


Thai baht


35,675 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3605 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9600 




INR


Indian rupee


78,7330 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9260 — PSP/Allianz/Greystar/Paul Street East) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, pension fund, property leasing, student residence








C_2019102EN.01000301.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9260 — PSP/Allianz/Greystar/Paul Street East)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 102/05)
On 11 March 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 32019M9260. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-219/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)
Date: 2019-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: architecture, civil engineering, freedom to provide services, legal person, provision of services, services contract, tendering, type of business








C_2019206EN.01002501.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)
(Case C-219/19)
(2019/C 206/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Question referred

Does recital 14 in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 80(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude a legal provision such as Article 46 of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, by which Italy transposed Directives 2014/23/EU, (2) 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU (3) into national law, which permits only economic operators created in the legal forms indicated in that provision to take part in tendering procedures for the award of ‘architectural and engineering services’, which has the effect of excluding from participation in such procedures economic operators that perform such services using a different legal form?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).