do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9872 – Atlas/Permasteelisa) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 218/09
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020218EN.01001401.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9872 – Atlas/Permasteelisa)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 218/09)

1.   
On 22 June 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:






—


Atlas FRM LLC (‘Atlas’, United States),










—


Permasteelisa S.p.A. (‘Permasteelisa’, Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Atlas: private investment firm owning and operating a diversified group of platform companies, including global manufacturing, distribution and construction businesses,










—


for Permasteelisa: design, production and installation of architectural envelops (curtain walls) for large buildings made with steel or aluminium.






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.9872 – Atlas/Permasteelisa
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-18/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WM v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Conditions of detention — Article 16(1) — Detention in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal — Third-country national who poses a serious threat to public policy or public security)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, foreign national, illegal migration, imprisonment, penal institution, public safety, removal, return migration








C_2020279EN.01000702.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WM v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
(Case C-18/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Conditions of detention - Article 16(1) - Detention in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal - Third-country national who poses a serious threat to public policy or public security)
(2020/C 279/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WM

Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an illegally staying third-country national to be detained in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal, separated from ordinary prisoners, on the ground that he poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned.


(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Case T-562/19: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2020 — Klein v Commission (Action for failure to act — Medical devices — Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC — Safeguard clause procedure — Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device — Absence of a decision by the Commission — Out of time — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, action for failure to act, admissibility, market approval, medical device, protective clause








C_2020348EN.01001302.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/13






Order of the General Court of 2 July 2020 — Klein v Commission
(Case T-562/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Absence of a decision by the Commission - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 348/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. C. Becker, F. Thiran and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mr Christoph Klein shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-407/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, financing plan, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, use of languages








C_2020271EN.01005202.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/52






Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB
(Case T-407/20)
(2020/C 271/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, Germany)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on ten pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v CRU.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 218/07
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, company in difficulties, control of State aid, epidemic, infectious disease








C_2020218EN.01001201.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/12






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 218/07)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


30 March 2020




Case No


84976




Decision No


029/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Legal basis


The legal basis of the scheme is the Parliamentary Decision authorising the public guarantee scheme, in accordance with conditions proposed by the Ministry.




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


The purpose of the guarantee scheme is to alleviate the liquidity shortage faced by the airline industry and ensure that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak do not undermine the airlines’ viability.




Form of aid


Public guarantees




Budget


Estimated NOK 6 billion




Duration


31 March – 30 June




Economic sectors


Airline industry




Name and address of the granting authority







GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency




Pb 1763 Vika




N-0122 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/
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European cooperation, Frontex, Montenegro, agreement (EU), border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration, operation of the Institutions








L_2020209EN.01000101.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 209/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro

The Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro will enter into force on 1 July 2020, the procedure provided for in Article 12(2) of the Agreement having been completed on 26 May 2020.
Case C-477/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection for animal species — Annex IV — Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) — Resting places and breeding sites — Deterioration or destruction — Areas which have been abandoned)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, protected area, protected species, protection of animals, rodent








C_2020279EN.01001202.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/12






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
(Case C-477/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection for animal species - Annex IV - Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) - Resting places and breeding sites - Deterioration or destruction - Areas which have been abandoned)
(2020/C 279/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘resting places’ referred to in that provision also includes resting places which are no longer occupied by one of the protected animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive, such as the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster), where there is a sufficiently high probability that that species will return to such places, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Corrigendum to the Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU – Request made by a Contracting Entity (Official Journal of the European Union C 53 of 17 February 2020) 2020/C 218/11
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, award of contract, carriage of passengers, rail transport








C_2020218EN.01003801.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/38






Corrigendum to the Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU – Request made by a Contracting Entity

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 53 of 17 February 2020
)

(2020/C 218/11)
On page 11:
in the first paragraph, last phrase:
for:

‘The first working day following receipt of the request is 14 December 2019.’,

read:

‘The first working day following receipt of the request is 16 December 2019.’;

in the fourth paragraph, last phrase:
for:

‘The period therefore expires on 6 July 2020.’,

read:

‘The period therefore expires on 3 July 2020.’.
Case C-231/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(g) — Exemption of transactions for the management of special investment funds — Single supply used for the management of special investment funds and for other funds)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment company, provision of services, software, supplier, tax exemption








C_2020279EN.01001101.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
(Case C-231/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(g) - Exemption of transactions for the management of special investment funds - Single supply used for the management of special investment funds and for other funds)
(2020/C 279/15)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply of management services, provided by a software platform belonging to a third-party supplier for the benefit of a fund management company, which manages both special investment funds and other funds, does not fall within the exemption provided for in that provision.


(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 July 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 July 2020 2020/C 218/04
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020218EN.01000901.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/9






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 July 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 July 2020
(2020/C 218/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1200 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4528 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90430 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4965 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0620 




ISK


Iceland króna


155,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,7736 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,670 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4583 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8366 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6777 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6268 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5217 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6808 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7362 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5630 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,84 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2935 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9151 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5645 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 976,80 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8009 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,791 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,6793 




THB


Thai baht


34,709 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0960 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,7005 




INR


Indian rupee


84,6220 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-684/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Use in the course of trade of a sign that is identical with or similar to another person’s trade mark for goods or services that are identical with or similar to those for which that mark is registered — Scope of the term ‘using’ — Advertisement placed on a website by order of a person operating in the course of trade and subsequently reproduced on other websites)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020279EN.01001301.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR
(Case C-684/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Use in the course of trade of a sign that is identical with or similar to another person’s trade mark for goods or services that are identical with or similar to those for which that mark is registered - Scope of the term ‘using’ - Advertisement placed on a website by order of a person operating in the course of trade and subsequently reproduced on other websites)
(2020/C 279/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: mk advokaten GbR

Defendant: MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a person operating in the course of trade that has arranged for an advertisement which infringes another person’s trade mark to be placed on a website is not using a sign which is identical with that trade mark where the operators of other websites reproduce that advertisement by placing it online, on their own initiative and in their own name, on other websites.


(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case C-256/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — proceedings brought by S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Effective judicial protection in the areas covered by EU law — Principle of judicial independence — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 267 TFEU — Admissibility — National provisions relating to the allocation of cases in a court or tribunal — Remedy — Interpretation necessary to enable the referring court to give judgment — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: independence of the judiciary, institutional activity, jurisdiction, legal process, right to justice








C_2020329EN.01000202.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/2






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — proceedings brought by S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG
(Case C-256/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Effective judicial protection in the areas covered by EU law - Principle of judicial independence - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 267 TFEU - Admissibility - National provisions relating to the allocation of cases in a court or tribunal - Remedy - Interpretation necessary to enable the referring court to give judgment - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 329/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

S.A.D. Maler und Anstreicher OG

Intervening parties: Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Bauarbeiter Urlaubs- und Abfertigungskasse

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Vienna Administrative Court, Austria), by decision of 27 February 2019, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case T-408/20: Action brought on 2 July 2020 — KR v Commission
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: care allowance, dependant, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020279EN.01005201.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/52






Action brought on 2 July 2020 — KR v Commission
(Case T-408/20)
(2020/C 279/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KR (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 25 October 2019 to no longer regard the applicant’s child as being his dependent child within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Commission misconstrued, first, the concept of dependent child referred to in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, second, revised Conclusion No 223/04 of 30 January 2013 of the Heads of Administration of the European Union.