do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9620 — Bridgepoint/Vermaat) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 394/05
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering, catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019394EN.01001001.xml










21.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9620 — Bridgepoint/Vermaat)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 394/05)

1.   
On 14 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:






—


Bridgepoint Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom),










—


Vermaat Groep B.V. (‘Vermaat’, the Netherlands).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bridgepoint: an independently owned private equity group focussed on investing in established European middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, including consumer/retail, business services, industrials, financial services, healthcare, media and technology,










—


for Vermaat: provides outsourced catering services to a variety of markets including corporates, leisure, hospitals and travel hubs. It offers services in over 350 food and beverage outlets, including restaurants, cafés, cafeterias, canteens and convenience stores in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent in Germany and Belgium.






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.9620 — Bridgepoint/Vermaat
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.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 20 November 20192019/C 394/01
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019394EN.01000101.xml










21.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 November 2019
(2019/C 394/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1059 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,96 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4731 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85715 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6935 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0977 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1455 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,541 




HUF


Hungarian forint


333,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2932 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7803 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3003 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6227 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4711 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6549 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7222 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5059 




KRW


South Korean won


1 294,49 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3671 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7786 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4395 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 602,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6066 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,279 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7748 




THB


Thai baht


33,382 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6409 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4802 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4230 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-241/18: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — Bruno v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Payments to a national or private pension scheme since taking up duties — Pension rights acquired previously under a national scheme — Article 11(1) and Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, servant (EU), severance pay, staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, transfer of pension rights








C_2020010EN.01003101.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/31






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — Bruno v Commission
(Case T-241/18) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Payments to a national or private pension scheme since taking up duties - Pension rights acquired previously under a national scheme - Article 11(1) and Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment)
(2020/C 10/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Bruno (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and R. Strian, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Gonzalez Argüelles, T. Lazian and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 4 July 2017 dismissing the request made by the applicant to pay him the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, alternatively, of the subsequent decision of 18 January 2018 dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Luigi Bruno to pay the costs;











3.



Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-678/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 90(1) — Provisional and protective measures — Jurisdiction of national courts of first instance — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts designated in that provision)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, jurisdiction, preliminary issue








C_2020027EN.01000701.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Case C-678/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 90(1) - Provisional and protective measures - Jurisdiction of national courts of first instance - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts designated in that provision)
(2020/C 27/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the courts and tribunals of the Member States with jurisdiction to order provisional measures, including protective measures, in respect of a national design also have jurisdiction to order such measures in respect of a Community design.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-618/18: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — ZI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Affiliation of the official’s spouse — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health insurance, married person, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020019EN.01004901.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/49






Order of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — ZI v Commission
(Case T-618/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Affiliation of the official’s spouse - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 19/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZI (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 4 December 2017 of the Commission’s ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



ZI shall bear the costs.







(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Case C-198/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CeDe Group AB v KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 6 — Insolvency proceedings — Applicable law — European order for payment procedure — Failure to pay a contractual claim before bankruptcy — Exception of set-off based on a contractual claim arising prior to bankruptcy)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, injunction, private international law








C_2020027EN.01000301.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CeDe Group AB v KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation
(Case C-198/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 6 - Insolvency proceedings - Applicable law - European order for payment procedure - Failure to pay a contractual claim before bankruptcy - Exception of set-off based on a contractual claim arising prior to bankruptcy)
(2020/C 27/03)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CeDe Group AB

Defendant: KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as not applying to an action brought by the liquidator of an insolvent company established in one Member State for the payment of goods delivered under a contract concluded before the insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of that company, against the other contracting company, which is established in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Case T-527/18: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark tec.nicum — Earlier national figurative mark TECNIUM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, industrial research, provision of services, registered trade mark, scientific research, software, trade-mark law








C_2020019EN.01004402.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/44






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)
(Case T-527/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark tec.nicum - Earlier national figurative mark TECNIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
(2020/C 19/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tecnium, SL (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2427/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnium and K.A. Schmersal Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9598 — Allianz/T&R) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 394/04
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering, catering industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, insurance, investment company, merger control, motor fuel, retail selling








C_2019394EN.01000801.xml










21.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9598 — Allianz/T&R)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 394/04)

1.   
On 11 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:






—


Allianz Capital Partners GmbH (‘ACP’, Germany), belonging to the group Allianz SE (Germany),










—


Autobahn Tank & Rast Gruppe GmbH & Co KG (‘T&R’, Germany).




Allianz SE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of T&R. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ACP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allianz SE, the ultimate parent company of the Allianz Group. The Allianz Group offers a comprehensive range of insurance and asset management products and services to both private and corporate customers in more than 70 countries,










—


T&R is a provider of food services, retail goods, hotel accommodation and fuel on German motorways.






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.9598 — Allianz/T&R
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-849/19: Action brought on 21 November 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2020019EN.01003601.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/36






Action brought on 21 November 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-849/19)
(2020/C 19/38)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, C. Hermes)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC (2) of 19 July 2006;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation objectives within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.
Also, the European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation measures within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.
For those reasons, the Hellenic Republic has infringed Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

(2)  Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1).
Case C-852/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, evidence, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial investigation, protection of privacy, right to justice, search, seizure of goods








C_2020068EN.01003101.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
(Case C-852/19)
(2020/C 68/33)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred

Is national legislation which does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order for the search of residential and business premises, the seizure of certain items and the hearing of a witness compatible with Article 14(1) to (4), Article 1(4) and recitals 18 and 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) and with Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 13 and 8 of the ECHR?
Can a European Investigation Order be issued under those circumstances?


(1)  Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014, L 130, p. 1).
Case T-806/19: Action brought on 21 November 2019 — Govern d'Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra)
Date: 2019-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, education, financial services, publishing, real estate business, registered trade mark, tobacco, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2020027EN.01006402.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/64






Action brought on 21 November 2019 — Govern d'Andorra v EUIPO
(Andorra)
(Case T-806/19)
(2020/C 27/64)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Govern d'Andorra (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Andorra — Application for registration No 16 797 912

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 737/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Legal uncertainty arising from different EUIPO decisions relating to very similar marks and the need for reasons to be given in decisions.