do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9358 — Bregal Unternehmerkapital/MEDIA Central) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, marketing, merger control, provision of services








C_2019267EN.01000101.xml










9.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9358 — Bregal Unternehmerkapital/MEDIA Central)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 267/01)
On 13 May 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 German language 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 32019M9358. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9348 — Omers Infrastructure/Morgan Stanley/VTG) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, logistics, merger control, rail transport, securities








C_2019267EN.01000102.xml










9.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9348 — Omers Infrastructure/Morgan Stanley/VTG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 267/02)
On 13 May 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 32019M9348. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-374/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building industry, capital goods, catering industry, property development, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019288EN.01002101.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler
(Case C-374/19)
(2019/C 288/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Question referred

Does a taxable person who produces an investment object with regard to taxable use with entitlement to input tax deduction (in this case: construction of a building for the operation of a cafeteria) have to adjust the input tax deduction under Article 185(1) and Article 187 of the VAT Directive (1) if he ceases the sales activity justifying the input tax deduction (in this case: operation of the cafeteria) and the investment object now remains unused in the scope of the previously taxable use?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).
Case T-298/19: Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Shape of red shoelace aglets)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, rights of the defence, trade-mark law








C_2019220EN.01004401.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/44






Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Shape of red shoelace aglets)
(Case T-298/19)
(2019/C 220/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Shape of red shoelace aglets) — Application for registration No 15 152 606

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 in Case R 1170/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;










—


Infringement of the right to a fair hearing.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9324 — ALSO/ABC Data) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications equipment, wholesale trade








C_2019163EN.01000701.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9324 — ALSO/ABC Data)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 163/03)

1.   
On 2 May 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:






—


ALSO Holding AG (‘ALSO’, Switzerland),










—


ABC Data Group (‘ABC Data’, Poland).




ALSO acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the assets of ABC Data.
The concentration is accomplished by way of acquisition of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ALSO: wholesale of Information Technology, Telecommunications (‘ICT’) and Consumer Electronics (‘CE’) products, solutions and services in Europe.
—   for ABC Data: wholesale of computers, peripherals and software, telecommunication equipment and consumer electronics as well as the provision of related services (financing, customer support, consulting, etc.).


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.9324 — ALSO/ABC Data
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.9313 — Equistone/CH&amp;CO) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering, catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019247EN.01002501.xml










23.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/25






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9313 — Equistone/CH&CO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 247/04)
On 13 May 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 32019M9313. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-300/19: Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Achema and Lifosa v Commission
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Lithuania, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, investment aid, power plant, renewable energy, tax relief








C_2019238EN.01002501.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/25






Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Achema and Lifosa v Commission
(Case T-300/19)
(2019/C 238/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) and Lifosa AB (Kedainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Righini and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission decision C(2018) 9209 final of 8 January 2019 in State aid case SA.45765 (2018/NN) — Lithuania — Support to power plants producing electricity from renewable energy sources;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure, thereby depriving the applicants of the procedural rights provided for by Article 108(2) TFEU.






—


The applicants maintain that all the evidence indicates that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the State aid and its financing method with the internal market and EU law. Therefore, it should have opened a formal investigation.










—


The applicants refer to an ample body of evidence ranging from the length of the pre-notification phase and the disproportionate time allocation between that phase and the preliminary examination procedure, other circumstances under which the contested decision was adopted and the alleged flaws reflected in the content of that decision, which, they argue, is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by serious errors of assessment or the lack of assessment. These factors are said to show that the Commission made an insufficient analysis of the relevant aspects and did not have all the information needed before declaring the State aid and its financing method compatible with the internal market and EU law.










—


In particular, it is alleged that (i) the Commission erred in its assessment of an allegedly stand-alone Renewable Energy Sources (RES) scheme and RES levy, while misinterpreting the Lithuanian legislative framework and the applicants’ complaints; (ii) the Commission failed to assess investment aid granted to RES generators and therefore its substantive analysis is incomplete and insufficient; (iii) the Commission erred in its assessment of the exemptions from the levy under Article 107(1) TFEU; (iv) the Commission’s assessment of the compatibility of the RES scheme with the internal market was inadequate and erroneous; and (v) the assessment of the financing method’s compliance with EU law is flawed and insufficient.
Case C-373/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, education, physical education, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2020027EN.01001002.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics
(Case C-373/19)
(2020/C 27/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant: Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

Questions referred







1.


Does the concept of school or university education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1)of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax also include swimming tuition?










2.


Can the recognition of an organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as an organisation having objects similar to those of bodies governed by public law that have as their aim the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining result from the fact that the tuition provided by that organisation enables participants to learn a fundamental ability (in this case: swimming)?










3.


If the second question is answered in the negative: Does the tax exemption pursuant to Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Council Decision (EU) 2019/809 of 13 May 2019 appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Spain, appointment of members








L_2019133EN.01001001.xml










21.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/10








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/809
of 13 May 2019
         
appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 18 July 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/1203 (4), Mr Roger ALBINYANA i SAIGÍ was replaced by Mr Amadeu ALTAFAJ i TARDIO as an alternate member. On 8 October 2018, by Council Decision (EU) 2018/1502 (5), Mr Amadeu ALTAFAJ i TARDIO was replaced by Ms Natàlia MAS GUIX as an alternate member.












(2)


An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Natàlia MAS GUIX,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Ms Mireia BORRELL PORTA, Directora General de Relaciones Exteriores, Generalitat de Catalunya.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 May 2019.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2016/1203 of 18 July 2016 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 198, 23.7.2016, p. 44).

(5)  Council Decision (EU) 2018/1502 of 8 October 2018 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 254, 10.10.2018, p. 7).
Case C-377/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo S.S. and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, milk product, payment, regulation of agricultural production








C_2019312EN.01000401.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo S.S. and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
(Case C-377/19)
(2019/C 312/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Benedetti Pietro e Angelo S.S., Capparotto Giampaolo e Lorenzino S.S., Gonzo Dino S.S., Soc. Agr. Semplice F.Lli Isolan, Mantovani Giuseppe e Giorgio S.S., Azienda Agricola Padovani Luigi, Az. Agr. La Pila di Mastrotto Piergiorgio e C. S.S., Azienda Agricola Mastrotto Giuseppe

Respondent: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Question referred

In circumstances such as those described, does Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (1) preclude a national provision, such as that laid down in Article 9 of Decree-Law No 49/2003 in conjunction with Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157 of 24 June 2004, which lays down the criterion for identifying the priority category to which a levy unduly charged is to be refunded as whether or not the purchaser has made a regular monthly payment?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/761 of 13 May 2019 amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine)
Date: 2019-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Ukraine, public safety








L_2019125EN.01001601.xml










14.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/16








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/761
of 13 May 2019
         
amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 July 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/486/CFSP (1) on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine).












(2)


On 20 November 2017 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/2161 (2), extending the mandate of EUAM Ukraine until 31 May 2019 and providing a financial reference amount for the same period. On 18 December 2017 that reference amount was increased by means of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2371 (3).












(3)


On 5 March 2019, following a strategic review of EUAM Ukraine, the Political and Security Committee recommended that EUAM Ukraine be extended until 31 May 2021.












(4)


Decision 2014/486/CFSP should therefore be extended until 31 May 2021.












(5)


EUAM Ukraine will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2014/486/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUAM Ukraine for the period from 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2021 shall be EUR 54 138 700.’;










(2)


in Article 19, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall apply until 31 May 2021.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 May 2019.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2161 of 20 November 2017 amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (OJ L 304, 21.11.2017, p. 48).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2371 of 18 December 2017 amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (OJ L 337, 19.12.2017, p. 34).