do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9739 — AXA/Groupe Crédit Agricole/ELL Luxembourg 2) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 88/02
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, health insurance, insurance company, investment company, life assurance, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2020088EN.01000201.xml










17.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9739 — AXA/Groupe Crédit Agricole/ELL Luxembourg 2)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 88/02)
On 5 March 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 32020M9739. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9517 — Mylan/Upjohn) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 72/10
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2020072EN.01001301.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9517 — Mylan/Upjohn)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 72/10)

1.   
On 28 February 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:






—


Mylan N.V. (‘Mylan’, the Netherlands),










—


Upjohn Inc. (‘Upjohn’, China), controlled by Pfizer Inc. (‘Pfizer’, USA).




Mylan and Upjohn enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation by way of several transaction steps, including the transfer of shares and assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Mylan: Mylan develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals in addition to over-the-counter and consumer healthcare products.










—


for Upjohn: Upjohn is a business division of Pfizer which operates a portfolio of off-patent branded and generic medicines, as well as a generic business in the United-States under Greenstone LLC.






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.9517 – Mylan/Upjohn
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-248/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 — Annex I, points A, B and D — No collecting systems for urban waste water in certain agglomerations — No secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water — Construction and operation of treatment plants — Control of discharges from such plants)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, pollution control measures, urban area, wastewater, water analysis, water treatment








C_2020137EN.01002402.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/24






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
(Case C-248/19) (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 - Annex I, points A, B and D - No collecting systems for urban waste water in certain agglomerations - No secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water - Construction and operation of treatment plants - Control of discharges from such plants)
(2020/C 137/32)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Triantafyllou and E. Manhaeve, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by E. Zachariadou and M. Chatzigeorgiou, agents)

Operative part

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Republic of Cyprus, by failing:






—


to provide 31 agglomerations (Aradippou, Ypsonas, Dali, Voroklini, Deryneia, Sotira, Xylophagou, Pervolia, Kolossi, Poli Chrysochous, Leivadia, Dromolaxia, Pera Chorio-Nisou, Liopetri, Avgorou, Paliometocho, Kiti, Frenaros, Ormideia, Kokkinotrimithia, Trachoni, Episkopi, Xylotympou, Pano Polemidia, Pyla, Lympia, Parekklisia, Kakopetria, Achna, Meneou and Pyrgos) with a collecting system for urban waste water, and










—


to ensure, for the same agglomerations, that the urban waste water entering the collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge,




has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 of and Annex I, points A, B and D, to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008.










2.


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-127/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2020 — D. Spółka Akcyjna v W. Zrt
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air safety, air traffic control, air transport, bird, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, crew, indemnification, transport accident








C_2020209EN.01001001.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2020 — D. Spółka Akcyjna v W. Zrt
(Case C-127/20)
(2020/C 209/16)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: D. Spółka Akcyjna

Defendant: W. Zrt

Questions referred

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 …, (1) be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier whose aircraft has suffered a bird strike is obliged, as part of the reasonable measures that it must take, to provide, in its rotation-based flight planning system, for sufficient reserve time for a required safety check to be made?
and, in the event that this question is answered in the negative:
Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 …, be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier whose aircraft has suffered a bird strike is obliged, as part of the reasonable measures that it must take, to establish crew rosters or staffing levels in such a way that crews are ready for flight duties immediately after a required safety check is made, regardless of the limits on flight time and duty time and the rest period requirements laid down in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations …? (2)



(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 296, p. 1.
Case T-795/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Irregularities in the contract award procedure — Recovery of sums already paid — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, claim, enforcement of ruling, financial regulation, general budget (EU), interest, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of proportionality, reduced price, rights of the defence








C_2020137EN.01005002.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/50






Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission
(Case T-795/19 R)
(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
(2020/C 137/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7319 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract CARDS/2008/166-429 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-688/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer system, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020137EN.01004701.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/47






Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)
(Case T-688/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE - Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 137/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










3.


Orders Brigade Electronics Group plc to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 21.1.2019.
Case C-100/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services — Decision No 626/2008/EC — Article 4(1)(c), Article 7(1), and Article 8(1) — Complementary ground components — Authorisations issued by Member States — Requirement for operators to provide service coverage for a certain percentage of the population and the territory — Non-compliance — Effect)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: mobile communication, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, satellite communications, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2020137EN.01002401.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/24






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)
(Case C-100/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunications sector - Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Article 4(1)(c), Article 7(1), and Article 8(1) - Complementary ground components - Authorisations issued by Member States - Requirement for operators to provide service coverage for a certain percentage of the population and the territory - Non-compliance - Effect)
(2020/C 137/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc.

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Other parties to the proceedings: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd c.o. and Eutelsat SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 thereof has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application.


(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 March 2020 2020/C 72/03
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020072EN.01000401.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 March 2020
(2020/C 72/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1125 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,58 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4727 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86850 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5555 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0647 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3051 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,340 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,96 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2968 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8073 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,7828 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6794 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4862 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6437 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7667 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5400 




KRW


South Korean won


1 314,96 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9784 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7014 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4848 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 702,94 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6491 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,288 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2180 




THB


Thai baht


34,866 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,0146 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4105 




INR


Indian rupee


81,5025 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Notice of Open Competitions 2020/C 72/04
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, Denmark, EPSO, France, Greece, Poland, administrator, competition (EU), information profession, legal profession








C_2020072EN.01000501.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/5






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
(2020/C 72/04)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AD/375/20 – DANISH-LANGUAGE (DA) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/376/20 – GREEK-LANGUAGE (EL) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/377/20 – FRENCH-LANGUAGE (FR) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/378/20 – CROATIAN-LANGUAGE (HR) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)











 


EPSO/AD/379/20 – POLISH-LANGUAGE (PL) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union C 72 A of 5 March 2020.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case C-48/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-GmbH v Finanzamt Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(c) — Exemptions — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Telephone services — Services provided by nurses and medical assistants)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consultancy, health care, mobile communication, nursing staff, paramedical profession, provision of services, tax exemption, therapeutics








C_2020161EN.01001001.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/10






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-GmbH v Finanzamt Z
(Case C-48/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(c) - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Telephone services - Services provided by nurses and medical assistants)
(2020/C 161/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that services provided by telephone, consisting of advice relating to health and illness, can fall within the exemption provided for in that provision, provided that they pursue a therapeutic aim, which it is for the referring court to determine.










2.


Article 132(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not requiring that, due to the fact that medical services are provided by telephone, nurses and medical assistants who provide those services are subject to additional professional qualification requirements in order for those services to benefit from the exemption provided for in that provision, provided that they can be regarded as being of a level of quality equivalent to that of services provided by other service providers using the same means of communication, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case C-861/19: Order of the President of the Court of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — LJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gender equality, maternity benefit, principle of proportionality, social security legislation, supplementary pension








C_2020320EN.01002301.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/23






Order of the President of the Court of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — LJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
(Case C-861/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/50)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.