do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-66/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica di Trento (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Criminal proceedings against XK
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, competence of the institution, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial investigation, public prosecutor's department








C_2020209EN.01000501.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica di Trento (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Criminal proceedings against XK
(Case C-66/20)
(2020/C 209/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Procura della Repubblica di Trento

Party to the main proceedings

XK

Other Party

Finanzamt Münster

Question referred

In so far as it provides that ‘any other competent authority as defined by the issuing State which, in the specific case, is acting in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law’, may also be regarded as an issuing authority, but also provides that, in that case, ‘before it is transmitted to the executing authority the EIO shall be validated, after examination of its conformity with the conditions for issuing an EIO under this Directive, in particular the conditions set out in Article 6.1, by a judge, court, investigating judge or a public prosecutor in the issuing State’, is Article 2(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (1) to be interpreted as allowing a Member State to exempt an administrative authority from the obligation to have the EIO validated by defining it as a “judicial authority for the purposes of Article 2 of the Directive?


(1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9668 — JD Sports Fashion/Iberian Sports Retail Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 49/04
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, retail selling, sports equipment, sports facilities








C_2020049EN.01000401.xml










13.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9668 — JD Sports Fashion/Iberian Sports Retail Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 49/04)
On 24 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 32020M9668. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9656 — CD&R/Anixter) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 46/02
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications systems, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electricity supply, electronics industry, information security, investment company, merger control








C_2020046EN.01000201.xml










11.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9656 — CD&R/Anixter)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 46/02)
On 24 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 32020M9656. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions (Official Journal of the European Union L 321 of 12 December 2019)
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, access to information, company law, company with share capital, cross-frontier data flow, economic concentration, merger control, right of establishment, single market, transfer of businesses








L_2020020EN.01002401.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 20/24







Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 321 of 12 December 2019
)


On page 11, Article 1, point (3)(c):
for:







 



                           ‘
                           ”The Commission shall adopt the implementing acts referred to in point (ea) by 2 July 2020.”
                           ’,





read:







 



                           ‘
                           ”The Commission shall adopt the implementing acts referred to in point (ea) by 2 July 2021.”
                           ’.
Case C-35/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Syyttäjä v A
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Finland, border control, fine, freedom of movement, international waters, intra-EU transport, passport, pleasure craft, principle of proportionality








C_2020103EN.01001401.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Syyttäjä v A
(Case C-35/20)
(2020/C 103/21)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Syyttäjä

Defendant: A

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law, in particular Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (2) (Schengen Borders Code), or [Or. 14] the right of EU citizens to move freely within the territory of the European Union, preclude the application of a national provision requiring a person (whether or not an EU citizen), under threat of criminal penalties, to carry a valid passport or other valid travel document when travelling from one Member State to another by pleasure boat via international waters without entering the territory of a third country?










2.


Does EU law, in particular Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code), or the right of EU citizens to move freely within the territory of the European Union, preclude the application of a national provision requiring a person (whether or not an EU citizen), under threat of criminal penalties, to carry a valid passport or other valid travel document upon entering the Member State concerned from another Member State by pleasure boat via international waters without having entered the territory of a third country?










3.


In so far as no obstacle within the meaning of Questions 1 and 2 arises under EU law: Is the penalty normally imposed in Finland in the form of daily fines for crossing the Finnish border without carrying a valid travel document compatible with the principle of proportionality that follows from Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).
Case T-41/20: Action brought on 24 January 2020 — Di Bernardo v Commission
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), indemnification, professional experience, recruitment








C_2020077EN.01006001.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/60






Action brought on 24 January 2020 — Di Bernardo v Commission
(Case T-41/20)
(2020/C 77/81)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Danilo di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 13 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018 in Case T-811/16;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensation for material harm caused to the applicant, a sum of EUR 50 000 as well as a sum of EUR 7 000, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for his moral harm;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board in so far as the eligibility criteria that it laid down unlawfully restrict the scope of that notice. The applicant claims in that regard that, by adopting eligibility criteria which had the effect of excluding the taking into account of experience similar to that of the applicant, experience nevertheless compatible with the requirements of the competition notice, the Examining Board infringed the latter.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision and relating to the question whether the applicant’s professional experience is related to the responsibilities described in the competition notice.
Special Report 02/2020 The SME Instrument in action: an effective and innovative programme facing challenges2020/C 24/07
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aid to undertakings, competitiveness, financial aid, innovation, investment promotion, small and medium-sized enterprises, start-up








C_2020024EN.01001601.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/16






Special Report 02/2020
The SME Instrument in action: an effective and innovative programme facing challenges
(2020/C 24/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 02/2020 The SME Instrument in action: an effective and innovative programme facing challenges has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9688 — Cinvend/Astorg/LGC Science Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 31/01
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, measuring equipment, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, provision of services








C_2020031EN.01000101.xml










30.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9688 — Cinvend/Astorg/LGC Science Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 31/01)
On 24 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 32020M9688. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 12 July 2019)
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, external border of the EU, foreign national, third country








L_2020020EN.01002501.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 20/25







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 12 July 2019
)


On page 30, in point (3) of Article 1, the amendment to point (c) of Article 3(5)
for:







‘(c)


third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for a country which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, …’,





read:







‘(c)


third-country nationals holding a valid visa for a Member State which does not take part in the adoption of this Regulation, or for a Member State which does not yet apply the provisions of the Schengen acquis in full, or for Canada, Japan or the United States of America, …’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9718 — Cobepa/Gerflor) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 24/09
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020024EN.01003301.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/33






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9718 — Cobepa/Gerflor)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 24/09)

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:






—


Cobepa SA (‘Cobepa’, Belgium), controlled by Vedihold SA,










—


Topfloor SAS, the ultimate shareholding company of the Gerflor Group (‘Gerflor’, France).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Cobepa: privately-held investment company investing in Europe and North America,










—


for Gerflor: manufacture and supply of flooring solutions and wall finishes for professional and non-profesional customers.






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.9718 — Cobepa/Gerflor
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. 23 January 20202020/C 24/02
Date: 2020-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020024EN.01000401.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 January 2020
(2020/C 24/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1091 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4732 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84498 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5473 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0734 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9678 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,159 




HUF


Hungarian forint


337,19 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2439 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7788 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5771 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6149 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4599 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6201 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6797 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4971 




KRW


South Korean won


1 295,15 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9503 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6897 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4438 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 141,43 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5140 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,514 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,6301 




THB


Thai baht


33,883 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6253 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7527 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0965 






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