do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, market research, mass media, merger control, provision of services, research








C_2019284EN.01001801.xml










22.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 284/07)

1.   
On 16 August 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:






—


Bain Capital Investors LLC (Bain Capital Investors, United States),










—


Kantar Group (Kantar, United Kingdom), controlled by WPP plc (WPP, United Kingdom).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bain Capital Investors: global private equity investment firm that invests in companies across many sectors, including information technology, healthcare, retail and consumer products, communication, financial services and manufacturing,
—   for Kantar: global data, research, consulting and analytics activities, including the provision of market research services, media measurement services and marketing and communication services.


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.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar
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 C-627/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, access to the courts, appeal, imprisonment, independence of the judiciary, principle of proportionality, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2019383EN.01004501.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/45






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB
(Case C-627/19)
(2019/C 383/54)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: ZB

Question referred

In the case where an EAW seeks the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by an enforceable decision of a judge or court, whereas the EAW has been issued by a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, and there is a guarantee that he acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, does the condition also apply that there must be a possibility of instituting court proceedings against the decision to issue an EAW — in particular its proportionality — which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9485 — NAEV/Siemens/KoMiPo/Stavro Vind) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, health care profession, merger control, pension fund, power plant, renewable energy, wind energy








C_2019292EN.01000101.xml










30.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9485 — NAEV/Siemens/KoMiPo/Stavro Vind)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 292/01)
On 22 August 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 32019M9485. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Appointment and termination of Hearing Officers
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: appointment of members, competition, control of restrictive practices, dismissal








C_2019284EN.01001601.xml










22.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/16






Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Appointment and termination of Hearing Officers
(2019/C 284/05)
With effect from 15 July 2019, the EFTA Surveillance Authority appointed Michael Sánchez Rydelski, official of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as a Hearing Officer for the purposes of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 442/12/COL of 29 November 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (1).
The appointment of Caspar Ebrecht, pursuant to Decision No 497/15/COL of 16 December 2015 on the designation of new Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings, is terminated.
Craig Simpson remains in post as Hearing Officer at the EFTA Surveillance Authority.


(1)  OJ L 190, 11.7.2013, p. 93, and EEA Supplement No 40, 11.7.2013, p. 3.
Corrigendum to Directive 2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014)
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: commercial vehicle, environmental protection, motor vehicle, road safety, roadworthiness tests, technical regulations








L_2019219EN.01007701.xml










22.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 219/77







Corrigendum to Directive 2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 127 of 29 April 2014
)








1.


On page 169, Annex II, point 3, in the table:




for:

















‘4.1.2.


Alignment






Visual inspection and by operation








(a)


Headlamp grossly misaligned






 


X’


 










(b)


Light source incorrectly fitted






 


 


 





read:

















‘4.1.2.


Alignment






Visual inspection and by operation








(a)


Headlamp grossly misaligned






 


X


 










(b)


Light source incorrectly fitted






 


X’


 











2.


On page 192, Annex II, point 3, in the table, item 8.2.2.2 ‘Opacity’, column ‘Method’, second dash:




for:






‘—


For vehicles as of emission classes Euro 6 and Euro VI (9):’,




read:






‘—


For vehicles as of emission classes Euro 6 and Euro VI (8):’.










3.


On page 193, Annex II, point 3, in the table, item 8.2.2.2 ‘Opacity’, column ‘Reasons for failure’, point (b):




for:


                  ‘1,5 m– 1 (10)’,

read:


                  ‘1,5 m– 1 (9)’.







4.


On page 199, Annex II, point 3, end of table footnotes:




for:


                  ‘…






(8)


Type-approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Annex I, Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI).










(9)


Type approved according to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 Annex I Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI).










(10)


Type-approved in accordance with limits in row B, Section 5.3.1.4 of Annex I to Directive 70/220/EEC; row B1, B2 or C, Section 6.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 88/77/EEC or first registered or put into service after 1 July 2008.’,





read:


                  ‘…






(8)


Type-approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Annex I, Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI).










(9)


Type-approved in accordance with limits in row B, Section 5.3.1.4 of Annex I to Directive 70/220/EEC; row B1, B2 or C, Section 6.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 88/77/EEC or first registered or put into service after 1 July 2008.’.
Case C-624/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 August 2019 – K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, equal pay, gender equality








C_2019357EN.01002701.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/27






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 August 2019 – K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd
(Case C-624/19)
(2019/C 357/33)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: K and Others

Defendant: Tesco Stores Ltd

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) directly effective in claims made on the basis that claimants are performing work of equal value to their comparators?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is no, is the single source test for comparability in Article 157 distinct from the question of equal value, and if so, does that test have direct effect?
Case C-625/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, independence of the judiciary, principle of proportionality, public prosecutor's department








C_2019383EN.01004401.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/44






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD
(Case C-625/19)
(2019/C 383/52)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: XD

Question referred

Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of its responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, its proportionality prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?


(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-626/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v YC
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judgment of the Court (EU), judicial review, public prosecutor's department








C_2019383EN.01004402.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/44






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v YC
(Case C-626/19)
(2019/C 383/53)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: YC

Questions referred







1.


Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, the proportionality thereof, prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative: has the condition been met that the decision of the Public Prosecutor to issue an EAW and, in particular, the question of its proportionality, must be capable of being the subject of court proceedings which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection as referred to in paragraph 75 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019 (Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456) if, after his actual surrender, the requested person can avail of a legal remedy under which the invalidity of the EAW may be invoked before a court in the issuing Member State and under which that court examines, inter alia, whether the decision to issue that EAW was proportionate?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019284EN.01000201.xml










22.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 August 2019
(2019/C 284/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1104 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4564 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91545 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6983 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0875 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9263 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,794 




HUF


Hungarian forint


327,31 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3529 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7280 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3462 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6337 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4761 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7072 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7308 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5354 




KRW


South Korean won


1 335,79 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8573 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8438 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3830 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 808,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6387 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,941 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1897 




THB


Thai baht


34,173 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4621 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8446 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4655 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.