do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9461 — AbbVie/Allergan) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 392/11
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2019392EN.01001201.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9461 — AbbVie/Allergan)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 392/11)

1.   
On 12 November 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:






—


AbbVie Inc., (‘AbbVie’, United States),










—


Allergan plc (‘Allergan’, Ireland).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AbbVie is a global pharmaceutical company listed on the New York Stock Exchange and headquartered in the United States. AbbVie is engaged in the development and commercialisation of innovative medicines in six main therapeutic areas: immunology (including autoimmune diseases), oncology, virology, neuroscience/central nervous system disorders, metabolic diseases and pain associated with endometriosis;










—


Allergan is a global pharmaceutical company listed on the New York Stock Exchange and headquartered in Ireland. Allergan is engaged in the development and commercialisation of medicines in four key therapeutic areas: medical aesthetics, eye care, neuroscience/central nervous system disorders and gastroenterology.






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.9461 — AbbVie/Allergan
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 C-845/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DR
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, drug traffic, money laundering, right to justice








C_2020068EN.01002801.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DR
(Case C-845/19)
(2020/C 68/30)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad — Varna

Party to the main proceedings

DR

Questions referred







1.


Are Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39, corrigendum OJ 2014 L 138, p. 114) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable with respect to a criminal offence consisting of possession of narcotics for the purpose of distribution thereof, committed by a Bulgarian citizen in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, and where the potential economic proceeds are also realised and located in the Republic of Bulgaria?










2.


Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, how should the concept of ‘economic advantage derived […] indirectly from a criminal offence’ in Article 2(1) of the directive be understood, and can a sum of money, found in and confiscated from the home of the convicted person and his family and from a car driven by him, constitute such an advantage?










3.


Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as that of Article 53(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not provide for the confiscation of an ‘economic advantage derived […] indirectly from a criminal offence’?










4.


Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts?
Special Report No 24/2019 Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: Time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results2019/C 392/08
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, EU migration policy, Greece, Italy, external border of the EU, foreign national, illegal migration, resettlement of persons, return migration, rights of aliens








C_2019392EN.01000801.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/8






Special Report No 24/2019
‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: Time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’
(2019/C 392/08)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 24/2019 ‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: Time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9597 — Cinven/Stichting Barentz Beheer/Barentz) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 401/02
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: adjuvant, distributor, economic concentration, food additive, foundation, investment company, merger control








C_2019401EN.01000201.xml










27.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9597 — Cinven/Stichting Barentz Beheer/Barentz)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 401/02)
On 19 November 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 32019M9597. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 13/02
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metal waste, metallurgical industry, non-ferrous metal, waste recycling








C_2020013EN.01000301.xml










15.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/3






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 13/02)
On 19 November 2019, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding, to the following 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 C-486/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A, B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — Tax levied on confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks — Exemption of similar products liable to constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU — Power to impose criminal penalties for failure to fulfil obligations as regards that tax)
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, beverage, business management, confectionery, dairy ice cream, excise duty, natural person, penalty, tax exemption








C_2020045EN.01001301.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/13






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A, B
(Case C-486/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Tax levied on confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks - Exemption of similar products liable to constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU - Power to impose criminal penalties for failure to fulfil obligations as regards that tax)
(2020/C 45/09)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Criminal proceedings against

A, B

Operative part of the order

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a natural person, acting on behalf of a company subject to a consumption tax levied on certain products, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, who failed to fulfil its obligations as regards that tax, from facing criminal sanctions under the applicable national law, even though the exemption enjoyed by other undertakings as regards similar products should be considered State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.


(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Special Report No 21/2019 Addressing antimicrobial resistance: progress in the animal sector, but this health threat remains a challenge for the EU2019/C 392/07
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: action programme, animal health, antibiotic, antimicrobial resistance, drug surveillance, food safety, infectious disease, public health, veterinary legislation, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019392EN.01000701.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/7






Special Report No 21/2019
‘Addressing antimicrobial resistance: progress in the animal sector, but this health threat remains a challenge for the EU’
(2019/C 392/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 21/2019 ‘Addressing antimicrobial resistance: progress in the animal sector, but this health threat remains a challenge for the EU’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case C-840/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against N.C.
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, constitutional court, corruption, fraud against the EU, higher court, judge, judicial review, primacy of EU law, right to justice, ruling








C_2020201EN.01000302.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 19 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against N.C.
(Case C-840/19)
(2020/C 201/05)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Party to the main proceedings

N.C.

Other party to proceedings

Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, (1) adopted pursuant to Article 83(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judicial system, the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania), which requires re-examination of corruption cases decided within a specific period, and which are at the appeal stage, on grounds of failure to establish, within the supreme court, panels seized of the cases which specialise in that field, also recognising the speciality of the judges of which they were composed?











2.


Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and [the second paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a body outside the judicial system from declaring unlawful the composition of the panel seized of the case of a chamber of the supreme court (panel composed of judges in office who, at the time of their promotion, satisfied, inter alia, the specialisation requirement laid down for promotion to the supreme court)?











3.


Must the primacy of Europe Union law be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court delivered in a case relating to a constitutional dispute, which is binding under national law?







(1)  OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29.
Case T-797/19: Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, company in difficulties, company with share capital, credit institution, economic value, ownership, principle of proportionality, share, trade licence








C_2020010EN.01005601.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/56






Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB
(Case T-797/19)
(2020/C 10/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Fischer, J. Willheim and M. Ketzer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 14 November 2019, by which Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s authorisation as a credit institution was withdrawn;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


in the light of the circumstances of the present case, give the case priority pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The defendant infringed Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, (1) in so far as it incorrectly applied the national law applicable to the withdrawal of authorisation under Article 4(3) of that regulation.










2.


The defendant infringed the principle of proportionality, in so far as, by withdrawing authorisation, it unlawfully used the last resort out of the possible means of supervision.










3.


The defendant violated Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s right to an effective remedy, in so far as it did not suspend operation of the decision.










4.


The defendant infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, Paragraph 70(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on banking) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as it failed to respect Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s procedural rights guaranteed therein.










5.


The defendant violated Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ B.V.‘s right to property, in so far as it withdrew Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG’s authorisation and thereby destroyed the economic value of the shares in Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG held by Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ B.V.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9343 — Hyundai Heavy Industries/Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 392/10
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, shipbuilding, tanker








C_2019392EN.01001101.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9343 — Hyundai Heavy Industries/Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 392/10)

1.   
On 12 November 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:






—


Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (‘HHI’) (Korea),










—


Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., Ltd. (‘DSME’) (Korea), controlled by the Korea Development Bank (‘KDB’).




HHI acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of DSME.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for HHI: a Korean company mainly active in the construction of commercial vessels, including oil tankers, containerships, liquefied natural gas (‘LNG’) carriers and liquefied petroleum gas (‘LPG’) carriers, military vessels, and offshore facilities and the production of marine engines,










—


for DSME: a Korean company mainly active in the construction of commercial vessels including oil tankers, containerships, liquefied natural gas (‘LNG’) carriers and liquefied petroleum gas (‘LPG’) carriers and offshore facilities.






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.9343 — Hyundai Heavy Industries/Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering.
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-802/19: Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Kisscolor Living v EUIPO — Teoxane (KISS COLOR)
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, decontamination, dietary product, hairdressing and beauty care, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01007902.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/79






Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Kisscolor Living v EUIPO — Teoxane (KISS COLOR)
(Case T-802/19)
(2020/C 45/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Kisscolor Living GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teoxane SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark KISS COLOR in white and red — Application for registration No 16 396 996

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 2167/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 18 November 20192019/C 392/06
Date: 2019-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019392EN.01000601.xml










19.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 November 2019
(2019/C 392/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1061 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,55 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4726 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85330 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6603 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0960 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0860 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,593 




HUF


Hungarian forint


335,27 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2915 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7744 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3316 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6242 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4622 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6593 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7275 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5047 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,14 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3463 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7629 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4400 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 588,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5964 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,081 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,6242 




THB


Thai baht


33,443 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6201 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2907 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4260 






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