do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9534 — CKA/Greene King) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 361/01
Date: 2019-10-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, catering industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise, property development, rental business, retail trade








C_2019361EN.01000101.xml










25.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9534 — CKA/Greene King)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 361/01)
On 16 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 32019M9534. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-758/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 16 October 2019 — OH v ID
Date: 2019-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commissioner, Protocol (EU), civil liability proceedings, jurisdiction








C_2020019EN.01001401.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 16 October 2019 — OH v ID
(Case C-758/19)
(2020/C 19/18)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OH

Defendant: ID

Questions referred







(1)


Are the terms ‘immunity from legal proceedings’ and ‘immunity’, as formulated and for the purpose which they serve in Article 11 of the Protocol, (1) identical?










(2)


Does the immunity from legal proceedings/immunity envisaged in Article 11 include and cover, in addition to criminal prosecutions, civil claims made in actions against members of the Commission by injured third parties?










(3)


Is waiver of the Commissioner’s immunity from legal proceedings/immunity also possible in the context of a civil action brought against him, such as the action under consideration? If it is, who must initiate the waiver procedure in question?










(4)


Do the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction to rule on a non-contractual claim in tort, such as that at issue here, against a Commissioner?






(1)  Article 11 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, now annexed to the Treaty as Protocol No 7.
Case T-432/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care)
Date: 2019-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, pension scheme, servant (EU), severance pay, temporary employment








C_2019432EN.01004401.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/44






Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission
(Case T-432/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Principle of good administration - Duty of care)
(2019/C 432/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and D. Milanowska, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to pay the applicant the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(a) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Public postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Universal postal service provider — Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents)
Date: 2019-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, postal service, services of general interest, tax exemption, universal service








C_2019423EN.01000402.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)
(Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(a) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Public postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Universal postal service provider - Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents)
(2019/C 423/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH (C-5/18)

Defendants: Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18), Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(13) and Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that providers of services consisting in the service of items of correspondence, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, who, in their capacity as holders of a national licence permitting them to supply that service are required to effect, in accordance with provisions of national law, the formal service of court or administrative authority documents, must be regarded as ‘universal service providers’, in accordance with those provisions, so that those services must be exempt from value added tax as services effected by the ‘public postal services’ under Article 132 (1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9562 — Alight Solutions/NGA Human Resources) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 350/05
Date: 2019-10-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, management information system, merger control, on line data service, outsourcing, personnel administration, remuneration of work








C_2019350EN.01000601.xml










16.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9562 — Alight Solutions/NGA Human Resources)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 350/05)

1.   
On 7 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:






—


Tempo Holding Company LLC (‘Alight Solutions’, United States), which is a controlled portfolio company of Blackstone Group Inc. (‘Blackstone’, United States),










—


NGA Human Resources (‘NGA’, United Kingdom).




Alight Solutions acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect sole control of the whole of NGA.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Blackstone: asset management,










—


for Alight Solutions: provider of cloud-based human resources (‘HR’) management systems,










—


for NGA: provider of integrated software, outsourcing and IT technology solutions and services for payroll and HR management.






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.9562 — Alight Solutions/NGA Human Resources
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.