do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9427 — The Carlyle Group/Forgital Italy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2019256EN.01001901.xml










30.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/19






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9427 — The Carlyle Group/Forgital Italy)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 256/04)

1.   
On 22 July 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:






—


The Carlyle Group L.P. (United States, ‘Carlyle’),










—


Forgital Italy S.p.A. (Italy, ‘Forgital’).




Carlyle acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Forgital through F-Brasile S.r.l. (Italy, ‘F-Brasile’), a special acquisition vehicle indirectly owned by Carlyle. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carlyle: global investment firm that manages funds present in different business segments, including the manufacture of machined parts for aircraft engines,
—   for Forgital: forging, laminating and machining of rolled rings in the aerospace sector and supply of components in oil and gas, transmission, power generation and general mechanics.


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.9427 — The Carlyle Group/Forgital Italy
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-535/19: Action brought on 30 July 2019 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, consultancy, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019312EN.01004801.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/48






Action brought on 30 July 2019 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)
(Case T-535/19)
(2019/C 312/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: H.R. Participations SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hottinger Investment Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark JCE HOTTINGUER — EU trade mark No 10 093 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2019 in Case R 2078/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear all the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements, in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity before the Cancellation Division was flawed.










—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of that regulation.
Case T-538/19: Action brought on 30 July 2019 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU control, breach of domicile, competition law, competition policy, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, right to justice








C_2019328EN.01006601.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/66






Action brought on 30 July 2019 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission
(Case T-538/19)
(2019/C 328/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) (represented by: I. Simic, G. Aubron, O. de Juvigny and T. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 inapplicable in the present case on the basis of Article 277 TFEU and, consequently, annul European Commission Decision C(2019) 3761 of 13 May 2019;










—


annul European Commission Decision C(2019) 3761 of 13 May 2019 on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal in so far as it was adopted solely on the basis of documents seized during an inspection carried out beforehand on the basis of a decision that was itself illegal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal in so far as it is based on Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), a provision that is itself illegal and therefore inapplicable in the present case in accordance with Article 277 TFEU. That provision infringes the fundamental right to an effective remedy in that it does not allow undertakings to which a Commission inspection decision is addressed to bring proceedings to challenge the manner in which the inspection is carried out.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home in that the contested decision is valid for an indefinite period and is both imprecise and disproportionate in scope.
Case C-579/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another) v The Food Standards Agency
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, carcase, food inspection, food safety, slaughter animal, veterinarian








C_2019328EN.01003301.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/33






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another) v The Food Standards Agency
(Case C-579/19)
(2019/C 328/36)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another)

Respondent: The Food Standards Agency

Questions referred







1.


Do Regulations (EC) Nos 854 (1) and 882 (2) preclude a procedure whereby pursuant to section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 a Justice of the Peace decides on the merits of the case and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements?










2.


Does Regulation (EC) No 882 mandate a right of appeal in relation to a decision of an Official Veterinarian under article 5.2 of Regulation (EC) No 854 that the meat of a carcass was unfit for human consumption and, if it does, what approach should be applied in reviewing the merits of the decision taken by the Official Veterinarian on an appeal in such a case?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004, L 139, p. 206).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004, L 165, p. 1).
Case C-583/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Belén Bernaldo de Quirós against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2019 in Case T-273/18 Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020019EN.01000602.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/6






Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Belén Bernaldo de Quirós against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2019 in Case T-273/18 Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
(Case C-583/19 P)
(2020/C 19/08)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the judgment of 5 June 2019, Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission (T-273/18);










—


Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance;










—


Order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the facts, a manifest error of assessment and an imprecise reasoning in law.
In the context of the second plea in law submitted before the General Court, the appellant relied on the infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence within the framework of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The General Court ruled on that plea in paragraphs 81 to 94 of the judgment under appeal.
The appellant argues that the General Court’s findings are substantially incorrect. She submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in that, first, the internal rules cannot justify non-compliance with a statutory provision and, secondly, the general implementing provisions in question do not provide the delegation of powers of the appointing authority, Lastly, the interpretation of the provisions of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 4(4) of the general implementing provisions resulted in an imprecise reasoning in law.
Case C-581/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 30 July 2019 — FRENETIKEXITO — UNIPESSOAL, LDA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business activity, health service, human nutrition, payable service, provision of services, sport, tax exemption, tax law, tax relief








C_2019383EN.01003902.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/39






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 30 July 2019 — FRENETIKEXITO — UNIPESSOAL, LDA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-581/19)
(2019/C 383/47)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FRENETIKEXITO — UNIPESSOAL

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


Where, as occurs in this case, a company






(a)


carries on, principally, fitness and physical well-being activities and, on a secondary basis, human health activities, which include nutrition services, nutrition/dietary advice, fitness assessment services and massages; and










(b)


offers its customers plans that include only fitness services and plans that include nutrition services in addition to fitness services,
for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, (1) must the human health activity, and the nutrition service in particular, be regarded as ancillary to the fitness and physical well-being activity, with the effect that the ancillary supply must be given the same tax treatment as the principal supply, or, on the contrary, must the human health activity, and the nutrition service in particular, be regarded as independent of and distinct from the fitness and physical well-being activity, with the effect that the tax treatment established for each of those activities will apply to that activity?














2.


For the purposes of applying the exemption under Article 132(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, must the services listed in that article actually be supplied, or is it sufficient in order for that exemption to apply that they are merely made available, so that use of those services depends solely on the wishes of the customer?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-582/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Holzer y Cia, SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2019 in Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Holzer y Cia v EUIPO - Annco
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01002201.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/22






Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Holzer y Cia, SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2019 in Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Holzer y Cia v EUIPO - Annco
(Case C-582/19 P)
(2019/C 413/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (represented by: N.A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Annco, Inc.
By order of 22 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Holzer y Cia, SA de CV, shall bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9390 — Brookfield Asset Management/Oaktree Capital Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 6/05
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2020006EN.01000501.xml










10.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9390 — Brookfield Asset Management/Oaktree Capital Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 6/05)
On 30 July 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 32019M9390. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-578/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — X v Kuoni Travel Ltd
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, hotel industry, package travel, provision of services, staff








C_2019328EN.01003201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/32






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — X v Kuoni Travel Ltd
(Case C-578/19)
(2019/C 328/35)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Respondent: Kuoni Travel Ltd

Questions referred







1)


Where there has been a failure to perform or an improper performance of the obligations arising under the contract of an organizer or retailer with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC (1) of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours applies, and that failure to perform or improper performance is the result of the actions of an employee of a hotel company which is a provider of services to which that contract relates:






a)


is there scope for the application of the defence set out in the second part of the third alinea to article 5(2); and, if so,










b)


by which criteria is the national court to assess whether that defence applies?














2)


Where an organizer or retailer enters into a contract with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC applies, and where a hotel company provides services to which that contract relates, is an employee of that hotel company himself to be considered a ‘supplier of services’ for the purposes of the defence under article 5(2), third alinea of the Directive?






(1)  OJ 1990, L 158, p. 59.
Case T-537/19: Action brought on 30 July 2019 — DK v GSA
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, data protection, natural person, personal data, provision of documents, public safety, staff








C_2019328EN.01006501.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/65






Action brought on 30 July 2019 — DK v GSA
(Case T-537/19)
(2019/C 328/73)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: DK (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European GNSS Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the GSA decision of 20 May 2019 refusing full access to the document ‘summary of 26 June 2017 by Mr [X]’;










—


order the GSA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 4(1)(a) of 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). In that regard, the applicant claims that the decision of the European GNSS Agency (GSA) of 20 May 2019 refusing it full access to the document ‘summary of 26 June 2017 by Mr [X]’ is illegal in that that refusal is based on the public security exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the document in question:






—


cannot be connected with issues of public security since it concerns a case connected with agency personnel and;










—


cannot be classified [RESTREINT/RESTRICTED EU].














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision is illegal in so far as the refusal is based on the exception in respect of protection of personal data of the natural persons named in the document, provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since relying on that exception is, in the present case, unjustified and disproportionate.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9425 — Genstar Capital Partners/TA Associates/Insightsoftware Business) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial accounting, investment company, merger control, software








C_2019265EN.01000101.xml










7.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9425 — Genstar Capital Partners/TA Associates/Insightsoftware Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 265/01)
On 30 July 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 32019M9425. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.