do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 26 November 2019 by Abelia and WTW AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-9/19)2020/C 23/07
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, competition policy, control of State aid, e-Health, employers' organisation, innovation, public financing, public sector








C_2020023EN.01000701.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/7






Action brought on 26 November 2019 by Abelia and WTW AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-9/19)
(2020/C 23/07)
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 November 2019 by Abelia and WTW AS, represented by Espen Bakken, advocate, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, P.O. Box 2734, Solli, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
The Applicants request the EFTA Court to:






1.


Annul Decision No 57/19/COL, of 10 July 2019, of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










2.


Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


Abelia is a trade and employers association within Norway’s largest employers’ organisation; the NHO (Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry).










—


WTW AS is a software developer, and a member company of the trade organisation Abelia, offering innovative technical solutions to customers within a range of business segments. WTW is also present within the e-health sector and operates in direct competition with the public e-health solutions considered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’) in the Contested Decision.










—


The Contested Decision concerns the notified financing of a public corporation tasked with the provision of a national eHealth solution.










—


The Norwegian Government did not view the publicly financed interconnected eHealth activities as State aid because it did not amount to ‘economic activities’ within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, but provided a Notification for Legal Certainty dated 3 May 2019.










—


The Authority adopted the Contested Decision on 10 July 2019 based on Article 4(2) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, concluding that Norsk Helsenett SF and the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth do not constitute ‘undertakings’ in the provision of the eHealth solutions in accordance with the current organisation of the Norwegian health sector.










—


In the Contested Decision, the Authority also found that the notified measures did not confer an economic advantage to Norsk Helsenett SF within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.










—


The Applicants challenge the fact that the Authority adopted the Contested Decision in relation to the aid without initiating the formal investigation procedure, thereby infringing the Applicants’ procedural rights.










—


Thus, the Applicants submit that the EFTA Court should annul the Contested Decision.
Case C-863/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against TS
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confiscation of property, drug traffic, money laundering, right to justice








C_2020068EN.01003201.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against TS
(Case C-863/19)
(2020/C 68/34)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad Varna

Party to the main proceedings

TS

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?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9622 — EUROVIA Industrie/ASA-Bau/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 400/12
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, civil engineering, economic concentration, merger control, petroleum product, road building








C_2019400EN.01001701.xml










26.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9622 — EUROVIA Industrie/ASA-Bau/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 400/12)

1.   
On 15 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:






—


EUROVIA Industrie GmbH (‘EVI’, Germany),










—


ASA-Bau GmbH (‘ASA’, Germany),










—


Hanse-Asphaltmischwerke GmbH (‘HANSE’, Germany).




EVI and ASA acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of HANSE.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for EVI: production and distribution of asphalt mix, civil engineering (including road works) in several German federal states, production of aggregates and production of bitumen. EVI belongs to the group VINCI S.A. (France),










—


for ASA: production and distribution of asphalt mix, civil engineering (including road works) in North-Eastern Germany. ASA is controlled by Arkil Holding A/S (Denmark),










—


for HANSE: production and distribution of asphalt mix in North-Eastern Germany.






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.9622 — EUROVIA Industrie/ASA-Bau/JV
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-862/19 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2019 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-629/17 Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, broadcasting, eligibility criteria, operational programme, programmes industry, public procurement, services contract








C_2020027EN.01002701.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/27






Appeal brought on 26 November 2019 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-629/17 Czech Republic v Commission
(Case C-862/19 P)
(2020/C 27/34)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, I. Gavrilová, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-629/17;










—


annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017)4682;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward one ground in support of the appeal, alleging infringement of Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. (1)

It argues that the judgment under appeal must be set aside on the ground that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the exception contained in Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 relates to public contracts for programme material only when the contracting authority is a broadcaster. It claims that it is nevertheless apparent from the wording, purpose, scheme and legislative history of the provision concerned that the exception in question must also be applied in the situation where the broadcaster is a contracting party in the position of a provider of programme material, as was the case with the contract at issue in the Czech Republic.
Having regard to the fact that the financial correction implemented by Commission Decision C(2017) 4682 was founded exclusively on the fact that the contracting authority for the contract at issue was not a broadcaster, that decision must be annulled in addition to the judgment under appeal of the General Court being set aside.


(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
Case C-857/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative offence, competition law, competition policy, dominant position, sanction (EU)








C_2020036EN.01001901.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-857/19)
(2020/C 36/24)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s.

Defendant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

A question concerning the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty:






1.


Does the phrase ‘shall relieve the competition authorities of the Member States of their competence to apply Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty’ (2) mean that the authorities of the Member States lose their powers to apply Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty?










2.


Does Article 50 (Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, also apply to administrative offences consisting of the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for which the Commission and the authority of a Member State have imposed sanctions separately and independently in the exercise of their powers under Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

(2)  [in the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003]
Special Report No 18/2019 EU greenhouse gas emissions: Well reported, but better insight needed into future reductions2019/C 400/11
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, climate change, environmental monitoring, environmental statistics, greenhouse gas, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions








C_2019400EN.01001601.xml










26.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/16






Special Report No 18/2019
‘EU greenhouse gas emissions: Well reported, but better insight needed into future reductions’
(2019/C 400/11)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 18/2019 ‘EU greenhouse gas emissions: Well reported, but better insight needed into future reductions’ 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 T-290/19: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, baby food, food supplement, medical device, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020027EN.01007202.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/72






Order of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)
(Case T-290/19) (1)

(2020/C 27/74)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
European Parliament decision of 26 November 2019 on the nomination of Klaus-Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0124/2019 — 2019/0811(NLE))
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2021232EN.01007701.xml










16.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/77






P9_TA(2019)0065
Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Klaus-Heiner Lehne
European Parliament decision of 26 November 2019 on the nomination of Klaus-Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0124/2019 — 2019/0811(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2021/C 232/20)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0124/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0029/2019),










A.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










B.


whereas at its meeting of 12 November 2019 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Klaus-Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, to the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9672 — Apollo/Gamenet) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 400/13
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, financial services, game of chance, gaming establishment, health care, insurance, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019400EN.01001901.xml










26.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 400/19






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9672 — Apollo/Gamenet)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 400/13)

1.   
On 15 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:






—


Apollo Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, United States),










—


Gamenet Group S.p.A (‘Gamenet’, Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Apollo: invests in companies and debt issued by companies involved in various businesses throughout the world such as companies in the chemical, hospital, security, insurance, financial services, and real estate businesses,










—


for Gamenet: offers a diversified product range across four operating segments: (i) concessionaries of betting and online games; (ii) direct managers of owned gaming halls and amusement with prizes (AWPs); (iii) concessionaries of slot machines/amusement with prize terminals; and (iv) concessionaires of video lottery terminals.






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.9672 — Apollo/Gamenet
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’).
European Parliament decision of 26 November 2019 on the nomination of François-Roger Cazala as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0121/2019 — 2019/0814(NLE))
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2021232EN.01007401.xml










16.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/74






P9_TA(2019)0062
Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — François-Roger Cazala
European Parliament decision of 26 November 2019 on the nomination of François-Roger Cazala as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0121/2019 — 2019/0814(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2021/C 232/17)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0121/2019),










—


having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0031/2019),










A.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










B.


whereas at its meeting of 12 November 2019 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of François-Roger Cazala as a Member of the Court of Auditors;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, to the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Case T-287/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Export refunds — No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State — Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, export refund








C_2020019EN.01004201.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/42






Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Belgium v Commission
(Case T-287/16 RENV) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality)
(2020/C 19/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00;











2.



Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.







(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.