do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Communication from the Commission — Regarding the start of functioning of the Advisory Council for Outermost Regions
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), common fisheries policy, fishery management, operation of the Institutions, peripheral region








C_2019219EN.01000301.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/3






COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Regarding the start of functioning of the Advisory Council for Outermost Regions
(2019/C 219/03)
Article 43(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (1) creates four new Advisory Councils, including one for Outermost Regions. The Advisory Councils for Aquaculture, for Markets and for the Black Sea were all set-up in 2016 (2). The Advisory Council for Outermost Regions is the last Advisory Council to be set-up.
In line with Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 of 9 October 2014 laying down detailed rules on the functioning of Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (3), stakeholders interested in the setting up of this new Advisory Council have submitted to the Commission in January 2019, a joint application regarding the start of functioning of an Advisory Council for Outermost Regions.
The Commission has verified the compatibility of the joint application with the relevant EU rules and subsequently transmitted it to the three Member States concerned (4), who needed to determine whether the application is signed by representative sector organisations and other interest groups.
Member States concerned did not raise any objection within the deadline of one month set in Article 3(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242. In conclusion, the Advisory Council for Outermost Regions can start functioning and become eligible to receive an annual contribution from the EU Budget to cover a part of its operational costs from the day following the publication of this Communication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.

(2)  Communication from the Commission regarding the start of the functioning of the Advisory Council for Aquaculture, of the Advisory Council for Markets and of the Advisory Council for the Black Sea (OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 1).

(3)  OJ L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 1.

(4)  France, Portugal, Spain.
Case T-442/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Carollo v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01006201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/62






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Carollo v Parliament
(Case T-442/19)
(2019/C 295/81)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Carollo (Torri di Quartesolo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-436/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Aita v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01005801.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/58






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Aita v Parliament
(Case T-436/19)
(2019/C 295/75)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vincenzo Aita (Campagna, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-437/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Melandri v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01005802.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/58






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Melandri v Parliament
(Case T-437/19)
(2019/C 295/76)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Eugenio Melandri (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-435/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Caligaris v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01005701.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/57






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Caligaris v Parliament
(Case T-435/19)
(2019/C 295/74)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Caligaris (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9396 — Capman/CBRE/Norled) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, maritime transport, merger control, provision of services, real estate business








C_2019219EN.01000501.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9396 — Capman/CBRE/Norled)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 219/05)

1.   
On 20 June 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:






—


CapMan AIFM Oy (‘CapMan’, Finland),










—


CBRE Caledon Capital Management Inc. (‘CBRE’, Canada),










—


Norled AS (‘Norled’, Norway).




CapMan and CBRE acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Norled.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CapMan: manager of the investment fund CapMan Nordic Infrastructure I SCSP established in Luxembourg. CapMan is part of CapMan Group, a Nordic private assets management and investment company headquartered in Helsinki, Finland,
—   for CBRE: controlling the investment fund CBRE Caledon Noah Aggregator LP established in Ontario, Canada. CBRE is an indirect subsidiary of CBRE Group, a commercial real estate services and investment firm, headquartered in Los Angeles, US,
—   for Norled: a provider of ferry and express boat services in Norway.


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.9396 — Capman/CBRE/Norled
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.
Case T-445/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Chiesa v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01006402.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/64






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Chiesa v Parliament
(Case T-445/19)
(2019/C 295/84)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giulietto Chiesa (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9294 — BMS/Celgene) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2019219EN.01000801.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9294 — BMS/Celgene)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 219/07)

1.   
On 24 June 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:






—


Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, (‘BMS’, United States),










—


Celgene Corporation (‘Celgene’, United States).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BMS is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. BMS is engaged in the development and commercialisation of innovative medicines in four main therapeutic areas: oncology, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and fibrotic diseases;










—


Celgene is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States. Celgene is engaged primarily in the development and commercialisation of innovative therapies in oncology and autoimmune diseases.






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.9294 — BMS/Celgene
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 T-438/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Novelli v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01005901.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/59






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Novelli v Parliament
(Case T-438/19)
(2019/C 295/77)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Diego Novelli (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-441/19: Action brought on 1 July 2019 — La Russa v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01006102.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/61






Action brought on 1 July 2019 — La Russa v Parliament
(Case T-441/19)
(2019/C 295/80)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Romano Maria La Russa (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 1 July 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.37956(2) – Ronds à Beton Rapporteur: Austria 2020/C 312/05
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Italy, bar, cartel, concrete, control of restrictive practices, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2020312EN.01000601.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/6






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 1 July 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.37956(2) – Ronds à Beton
Rapporteur: Austria
(2020/C 312/05)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s finding that the limitation period has not expired.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to an aggravating circumstance for one of the parties.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the application of mitigating circumstances for two parties for their non-participation, for a limited period, in one of the limbs of the conduct.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the application of an extraordinary mitigating circumstance in this case.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the amount of the extraordinary mitigating circumstance.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the amount of the reduction of the fine based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases for one of the parties.



9.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.



10.   

The Advisory Committee (4 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-388/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 July 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament (Application for interim measures – European Parliament – Verification of the credentials – No prima facie case)
Date: 2019-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European election, Spain, election result, indemnification, objections to an election result, parliamentary immunity








C_2019363EN.01001602.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/16






Order of the President of the General Court of 1 July 2019 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
(Case T-388/19 R)
(Application for interim measures - European Parliament - Verification of the credentials - No prima facie case)
(2019/C 363/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium) and Comín i Oliveres (Waterlo) (represented by: B. Bekaert, B. Emmerson, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, avocats)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Application submitted under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, to suspend the implementation of various decisions of the European Parliament ordered to prevent the applicants from sitting in Parliament as elected members and, second, to direct Parliament to take all necessary measures, including a declaration of the applicants’ privileges and immunities, to enable them to sit in Parliament as from 2 July 2019

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim measures is dismissed.











2.



The costs are reserved.