do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
State aid — Decision to raise no objections2020/C 23/05
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, small and medium-sized enterprises, tax exemption








C_2020023EN.01000501.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/5






State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 23/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


20 November 2019




Case No


84333




Decision No


079/19/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


All




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Amendments and a prolongation of the employee share options tax scheme




Legal basis


Norwegian Tax Act Section 5-14




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Aid to small and micro-enterprises




Form of aid


Tax exemption




Budget


NOK 570 million annually (total budget of scheme as amended)




Duration


2020-2029




Name and address of the granting authority


Ministry of Finance
P.O Box 8008 Dep
N-0030 Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-33/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2020 — UK v Volkswagen Bank GmbH
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, contract terms, interest, redemption, termination of a contract








C_2020161EN.01002701.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2020 — UK v Volkswagen Bank GmbH
(Case C-33/20)
(2020/C 161/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UK

Defendant: Volkswagen Bank GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement






(a)


must specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement as an absolute number or, at the very least, the current reference interest rate (in this case the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil Code)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), as an absolute number; and










(b)


must explain the specific arrangements for adjustment of the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments or, at the very least, must reference the national standards from which such arrangements follow (Paragraph 247 and Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB)?














2.


Is Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must specify a particular method that the consumer can understand for calculating the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan, so that the consumer can calculate at least approximately the compensation payable in the event of early termination?










3.


Is Article 10(2)(s) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement






(a)


must also specify the parties’ rights of termination of the credit agreement regulated under national law, including in particular the borrower’s right of termination with good cause under Paragraph 314 of the BGB, in the case of fixed-term loan agreements; and










(b)


must indicate the time limit for and form of the declaration of termination prescribed for the purpose of exercising the right of termination for all rights of termination of the parties to the credit agreement?










(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9701 — Infravia/Iliad/Iliad 73) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 99/01
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2020099EN.01000101.xml










26.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9701 — Infravia/Iliad/Iliad 73)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 99/01)
On 23 January 2020, 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 32020M9701. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement2020/C 23/06
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, cooperative, digital literacy, digital technology, education, public education








C_2020023EN.01000601.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/6






No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2020/C 23/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:






Date of adoption of the decision


18 November 2019




Case No


84261




Decision No


078/19/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


FriDA




Form of aid


No aid




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9699 – Mitsubishi Corporation/Eneco Groep) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 23/12
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, energy storage, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, soft energy, wholesale trade








C_2020023EN.01001301.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9699 – Mitsubishi Corporation/Eneco Groep)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 23/12)

1.   
On 16 January 2020, 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:






—


Mitsubishi Corporation (‘MC’, Japan),










—


Eneco Groep N.V. (‘Eneco’, the Netherlands).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


MC is a global integrated trading company which develops and operates businesses across a variety of industries. MC (through its subsidiaries) is active in the development, construction and operation of windfarms, generation and wholesale supply of electricity and in trading of electricity in the EEA,










—


Eneco is active in the production and storage of electricity from (sustainable) resources, including wind, solar, water and bio-energy, the supply of electricity and gas to private and business customers, and provision of ancillary services.






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.9699 – Mitsubishi Corporation/Eneco Groep
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9383 — ZF/Wabco) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/04
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bus, commercial vehicle, economic concentration, merger control, motor car, motor vehicle industry, technology, vehicle parts








C_2021005EN.01000401.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9383 — ZF/Wabco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/04)
On 23 January 2020, 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 32020M9383. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-542/19: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — YX v Eurowings GmbH
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020313EN.01002101.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/21






Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — YX v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-542/19) (1)

(2020/C 313/30)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 353, 11.11.2019.
Case C-29/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2020 — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biocide, market approval








C_2020191EN.01000401.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2020 — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG
(Case C-29/20)
(2020/C 191/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Biofa AG

Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

Question referred

Where an active substance is approved in an implementing regulation adopted pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, (1) can it be taken as given in court proceedings in a Member State that the substance on which the approval is based is intended within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 to act by any means other than mere physical or mechanical action, or is it for the adjudicating national court to establish in fact whether the preconditions for the application of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 are fulfilled even after an implementing regulation has been adopted?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9559 – Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 23/13
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, security services, telecommunications








C_2020023EN.01001401.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9559 – Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 23/13)

1.   
On 15 January 2020, 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:






—


Telefónica S.A. (‘Telefónica’, Spain),










—


Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. (‘PCS’, Spain)










—


Prosegur Alarmas España, S.L.U. (‘Prosegur Alarmas’, Spain), currently solely controlled by PCS.




Telefónica and PCS acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Prosegur Alarmas.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 27 November 2019, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 20 December 2019.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Telefónica: a global telecommunications operator and mobile network provider, operating under a number of brands, including Movistar, O2 and Vivo. Telefónica is a 100 % publicly owned company listed on the Madrid, New York, Lima and Buenos Aires Stock Exchanges,










—


for PCS: provides security services to companies, homes and businesses. PCS’s operations are divided in three business lines, namely alarms, security, and cash,










—


for Prosegur Alarmas: active in the provision of alarms installation services and connection to reception centres in Spain.






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.9559 – Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España
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-578/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Energiavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 3 — Consumer protection — Article 37 — Tasks and powers of the regulatory authority — Out-of-court dispute settlement — Concept of ‘party’ — Right to appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority — Complaint made by a household customer against an electricity distribution system operator)
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, appeal, consumer protection, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy law, right of action, supervisory body








C_2020077EN.01000501.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/5






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Energiavirasto
(Case C-578/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3 - Consumer protection - Article 37 - Tasks and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party’ - Right to appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority - Complaint made by a household customer against an electricity distribution system operator)
(2020/C 77/06)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Energiavirasto

Intervener: A, Caruna Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to confer competence on the regulatory authority to settle disputes between household customers and system operators and, consequently, to grant household customers who have lodged a complaint with the regulatory authority against a system operator the status of ‘party’ within the meaning of that provision, and the right to appeal against the decision taken by that authority following that complaint.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-29/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Unemployment benefits — Calculation — Failure to take account of the final salary received in the Member State of residence — Reference period not of sufficient duration — Salary received following the employment relationship coming to an end — Person having previously been active as an employed person in Switzerland)
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: migrant worker, pay, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, termination of employment, unemployment insurance








C_2020077EN.01000601.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
(Case C-29/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Unemployment benefits - Calculation - Failure to take account of the final salary received in the Member State of residence - Reference period not of sufficient duration - Salary received following the employment relationship coming to an end - Person having previously been active as an employed person in Switzerland)
(2020/C 77/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZP

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 62(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while providing that the calculation of unemployment benefits is to be based on the amount of the previous salary, does not allow — where the period during which the person concerned was in receipt of a salary in respect of his or her last activity as an employed person pursued under that legislation is shorter than the reference period laid down by that legislation for determining the salary to be used as the basis for calculating unemployment benefits — for account to be taken of the salary received by the person concerned in respect of that activity.










2.


Article 62(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while providing that the calculation of unemployment benefits is to be based on the amount of the previous salary, does not allow — where the salary received by the person concerned in respect of the last activity pursued as an employed person under that legislation was not calculated or paid until after his or her employment relationship came to an end — for account to be taken of the salary received by the person concerned for that activity.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9612 — Central Group/SIGNA Prime/Mahis JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 35/01
Date: 2020-01-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, real estate business, retail trade, sales promotion








C_2020035EN.01000101.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9612 — Central Group/SIGNA Prime/Mahis JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 35/01)
On 23 January 2020, 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 32020M9612. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.