do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9453 — Phillips 66/Fortress Investment Group/United Pacific) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 356/01
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise, oil industry, petrol, retail trade








C_2019356EN.01000101.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 356/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9453 — Phillips 66/Fortress Investment Group/United Pacific)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 356/01)
On 11 October 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 32019M9453. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 10 October 20192019/C 344/02
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019344EN.01000201.xml










11.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 October 2019
(2019/C 344/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1030 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,52 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4684 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90155 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8415 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0948 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0535 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,893 




HUF


Hungarian forint


333,51 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3183 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7523 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4936 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6307 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4678 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6522 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7422 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5187 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,87 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6898 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8567 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4280 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 609,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6205 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,970 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,2901 




THB


Thai baht


33,537 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5186 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5223 




INR


Indian rupee


78,3555 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-695/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 –Falqui v Parliament
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary allowance, pension scheme, primacy of EU law, principle of legal certainty








C_2019406EN.01003901.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/39






Action brought on 11 October 2019 –Falqui v Parliament
(Case T-695/19)
(2019/C 406/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested notes and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Note D309417 of 8 July 2019 and Note D (2019) 14406 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament and, where relevant, against the opinion of the legal service of the European Parliament of 11 January 2019.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-347/19, Falqui v Parliament.
Case T-698/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FJ and Others v EEAS
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU), wage determination








C_2019406EN.01003902.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/39






Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FJ and Others v EEAS
(Case T-698/19)
(2019/C 406/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FJ and eight other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit in this connection that they could not have been aware of the irregularity of the remuneration paid to them under the correction coefficients in force.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which requires an interim update of remunerations where the variation in the cost of living, measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate, is found to have exceeded 5 % since the last update in the case of a given country.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9504 — Blackstone/CRH (European Distribution Business)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 48/04
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, distributor, economic concentration, heating, investment company, merger control, plumbing equipment








C_2020048EN.01000401.xml










12.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9504 — Blackstone/CRH (European Distribution Business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 48/04)
On 11 October 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 32019M9504. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9451 — Mall Group/Československá obchodní banka/MallPay) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 344/05
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic commerce, electronic money, financial services, merger control, payment system, provision of services








C_2019344EN.01000901.xml










11.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9451 — Mall Group/Československá obchodní banka/MallPay)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 344/05)

1.   
On 1 October 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:






—


Mall Group a.s. (‘Mall Group’, Czechia), jointly controlled by (i) Rockaway e-commerce a.s. and its group (‘Rockaway’ Czechia), (ii) EC Investments a.s. and its group (‘ECI’, Czechia), and (iii) BONAK a.s. and its group (as part of PPF Group N.V. and its group, ‘PPF’, Czechia),










—


Československá obchodní banka, a. s. (‘CSOB’, Czechia), controlled by KBC Bank (‘KBC’, Belgium),










—


MallPay s.r.o. (‘MallPay’, Czechia).




Mall Group and CSOB acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of MallPay. MallPay is currently solely controlled by Mall Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Mall Group: provision of e-commerce services in Central and Eastern Europe through a number of e-shops,










—


CSOB: provision of banking and financial services,










—


MallPay: provision of online payment solutions.






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.9451 — Mall Group/Československá obchodní banka/MallPay
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.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1672 of 4 October 2019 on a European Union action in support of the United Nations Verification and Inspection Mechanism in Yemen (Official Journal of the European Union L 256 of 7 October 2019)
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU action, UNO, Yemen, carriage of goods, harbour installation, maritime safety, maritime shipping, trade policy








L_2019260EN.01006901.xml










11.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 260/69







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1672 of 4 October 2019 on a European Union action in support of the United Nations Verification and Inspection Mechanism in Yemen

(Official Journal of the European Union L 256 of 7 October 2019)


On page 12:
for:


                  ‘Done at Strasbourg, 4 October 2019.’,

read:


                  ‘Done at Luxembourg, 4 October 2019.’.
Case T-700/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Al-Gaoud v Conseil
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal basis, natural person, ownership, protection of privacy, right to health, right to justice








C_2019406EN.01004101.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/41






Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Al-Gaoud v Conseil
(Case T-700/19)
(2019/C 406/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Abdel Majid Al-Gaoud (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintains the Applicant’s name on the list in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintain the Applicant’s name on the list in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before the General Court in accordance with the Rules of the General Court.





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 that the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has allegedly failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the Contested Measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defense as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Contested Measures are neither necessary nor appropriate for any legitimate aim and constitute an indefinite and disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s fundamental rights.
Case T-702/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Compass Overseas Holdings and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, group of companies, tax avoidance, tax exemption, tax law








C_2020010EN.01003401.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/34






Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Compass Overseas Holdings and Others v Commission
(Case T-702/19)
(2020/C 10/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Compass Overseas Holdings Ltd (Chertsey, United Kingdom), Compass Overseas Holdings No.2 Ltd (Chertsey), Hospitality Holdings Ltd (Chertsey) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in the identification in the contested decision of the reference system.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the Group Financing Exemption discriminates between economic operators.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.
Case T-699/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FT and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU), wage determination








C_2019406EN.01004001.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/40






Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FT and Others v Commission
(Case T-699/19)
(2019/C 406/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: FT and 25 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit in this connection that they could not have been aware of the irregularity of the remuneration paid to them under the correction coefficients in force.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which requires an interim update of remunerations where the variation in the cost of living, measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate, is found to have exceeded 5 % since the last update in the case of a given country.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2019-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, control of State aid








C_2019345EN.01000101.xml










11.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/1






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 345/01)







Date of adoption of the decision


09.08.2019




Aid number


SA.54949 (2019/N)




Member State


Slovenia




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)








A)


podpora električni energiji, proizvedeni iz obnovljivih virov energije in v soproizvodnji ter










B)


podpora elektro-intenzivnim podjetjem v obliki znižanih prispevkov v podporno shemo za električno energijo








Legal basis


Energetski zakon (EZ-1) (Uradni list RS, št. 17/14 in 81/15)




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant, Tax rate reduction




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 2 010  (in millions)




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


01.01.2020 - 31.12.2025




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority


Ministry of infrastructure
Langusova ulica 4




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.