do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry (OJ L 72, 14.3.2019)
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Kyoto Protocol, United Kingdom, air quality, air transport, database, greenhouse gas, information system, reduction of gas emissions, withdrawal from the EU




L_2019073EN.01019301.xml










15.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 73/193







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 72 of 14 March 2019
)


On page 5, Article 1:
for:


‘Article 1
In Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013, the following paragraph is added:


“4.   From the day following the one on which both ratification instruments concerning the Withdrawal Agreement have been deposited, allowances created for 2019 and 2020 shall not be identified with a country code if compliance with Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions taking place during these years is required by an agreement setting out arrangements for the withdrawal of such a Member State from the European Union.”’,




read:


‘Article 1
In Article 41(4) of Regulation (EU) No 389/2013, the following paragraph is added:

“From the day following the one on which both ratification instruments concerning the Withdrawal Agreement have been deposited, allowances created for 2019 and 2020 shall not be identified with a country code if compliance with Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions taking place during these years is required by an agreement setting out arrangements for the withdrawal of such a Member State from the European Union.”’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9301 — KDDI/Mitsubishi Securities/Kabu.com) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 344/03
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic commerce, financial services, information technology industry, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2020344EN.01000301.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9301 — KDDI/Mitsubishi Securities/Kabu.com)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 344/03)
On 15 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 32019M9301. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 15 March 2019 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40411 Google Search (AdSense) Rapporteur: Croatia 2020/C 369/01
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Internet site, advertising, advertising malpractice, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, provision of services, sanction (EU), search engine








C_2020369EN.01000101.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/1






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 15 March 2019 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40411 Google Search (AdSense)
Rapporteur: Croatia
(2020/C 369/01)

1.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant product markets are the market for online search advertising and the market for online search advertising intermediation.



2.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant geographic market for online search advertising is national in scope.



3.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant geographic market for online search advertising intermediation is EEA-wide in scope.



4.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Google has held a dominant position in the market for online search advertising intermediation between at least 2006 and 2016.



5.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Exclusivity Clause in contracts with All Sites Direct Partners constituted an abuse of Google's dominant position in the EEA-wide market for online search advertising intermediation within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.



6.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Premium Placement and Minimum Google Ads Clause constituted an abuse of Google's dominant position in the EEA-wide market for online search advertising intermediation within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.



7.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Authorising Equivalent Ads Clause constituted an abuse of Google's dominant position on the EEA-wide market for online search advertising intermediation within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.



8.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that all the above mentioned conducts constitute a single and continuous infringement as described in the draft decision.



9.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement as described in the draft decision.



10.   

The Advisory Committee requests the Commission to take into account the observations made during the meeting.



11.   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-158/19: Action brought on 15 March 2019 — Breyer v Commission
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, border control, consortium, immigration, migration control, new technology, research, research project, trade information








C_2019206EN.01004401.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/44






Action brought on 15 March 2019 — Breyer v Commission
(Case T-158/19)
(2019/C 206/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Patrick Breyer (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Breyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2019 bearing the reference Ares(2018)6073379; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Misapplication of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) (protection of commercial interests)






—


In the first plea in law the applicant argues that the disclosure of documents concerning the approval and execution of the iBorderCtrl research project would not negatively impact the protection of the commercial interests of the consortium’s members. The subject matter of the ‘Intelligent Portable Border Control System’ project is research into new technologies for immigration control, such as the introduction of ‘automated lie detection’ and the calculation of a risk value.










—


Further, the applicant claims that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents at issue.














2.


Second plea in law: misapplication of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(processing of applications)






—


In the second plea in law the applicant maintains that the Commission processed only the application for access to documents on the execution of the iBorderCtrl research project. However, the application for access to documents relating to the project’s approval was not processed.










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case C-236/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2019 by István Szécsi and Nóra Somossy against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 16 January 2019 in Case T-331/18, István Szécsi und Nóra Somossy v European Commission
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, application of EU law, consumer protection, restriction on competition, unfair terms of contract








C_2020077EN.01001102.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/11






Appeal brought on 15 March 2019 by István Szécsi and Nóra Somossy against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 16 January 2019 in Case T-331/18, István Szécsi und Nóra Somossy v European Commission
(Case C-236/19 P)
(2020/C 77/15)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: István Szécsi and Nóra Somossy (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 1 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Mr István Szécsi and Ms Nóra Somossy to bear their own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9312 — JAB/Coty) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clothing, cosmetics industry, economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control, retail selling








C_2019111EN.01000301.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9312 — JAB/Coty)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 111/05)
On 15 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 32019M9312. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.