do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9776 – Worldline/Ingenico) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 273/06
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic banking, electronic commerce, electronic money, merger control, payment, payment system, software








C_2020273EN.01000701.xml










18.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9776 – Worldline/Ingenico)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 273/06)

1.   
On 12 August 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:






—


Worldline S.A. (‘Worldline’, France),










—


Ingenico Group S.A. (‘Ingenico’, France).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Worldline: payment related services such as merchant acquiring for physical (in-store) or online (e-commerce) businesses, payment processing activities (acquiring and issuing) and e-commerce acceptance solutions, as well as supply of point-of-sale terminals,










—


for Ingenico: design, development and supply of point-of-sale terminals and related software, as well as payment related services such as merchant acquiring services and e-commerce acceptance 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.



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.9776 – Worldline/Ingenico
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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9864 — CPPIB/KKR/Axel Springer) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 273/05
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control








C_2020273EN.01000601.xml










18.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9864 — CPPIB/KKR/Axel Springer)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 273/05)

1.   
On 11 August 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:






—


Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPPIB’, Canada),










—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, USA),










—


Axel Springer SE (‘Axel Springer’, Germany).




CPPIB and KKR acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Axel Springer.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CCPIB: investment management organization that invests the funds transferred to it by the Canada Pension Plan Fund (‘CPP Fund’) that are not needed by the CPP Fund to pay current benefits to 20 million contributors and beneficiaries.










—


for KKR: investment firm that provides asset management services and capital market solutions.










—


for Axel Springer: media company active in more than 40 countries, operating diverse media brands (e.g., BILD and WELT Group, Insider Inc., Politico.eu) and classifieds portals (e.g., StepStone, SeLoger, Immowelt).






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.9864 — CPPIB/KKR/Axel Springer
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-394/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2020 — XY v Finanzamt V
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: acquisition of property, capital transfer tax, debt, economic value, inheritance, plot, residence, tax relief








C_2020378EN.01001801.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2020 — XY v Finanzamt V
(Case C-394/20)
(2020/C 378/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XY

Defendant: Finanzamt V

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 63(1) and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State is lower where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased than the allowance that would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at that time?










2.


Must Articles 63(1) and 65 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, debts arising from reserved portions in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State are not deductible where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased, whereas those debts would have been fully deductible from the value of the inheritance if at least the deceased or the heir had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at the time of the death of the deceased?
Case T-537/20: Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, State aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2020359EN.01001101.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/11






Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-537/20)
(2020/C 359/15)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania and relates to the ‘Early Retirement’ measure (measure 113);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law. It claims that the Commission, when adopting the contested decision, by which it imposed on Lithuania a correction of EUR 2 186 447,97 on the ground of a weakness of key controls, breached Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (2) and Articles 34(6) and 35(1) of Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (3) and failed to comply with the principle of proportionality and the duty to cooperate.
The Commission, when determining the scale of the non-compliance, the nature of the infringement and the financial harm caused to the European Union, applied to Lithuania a flat-rate correction, although ex post checks were carried out by the Lithuanian authorities which were based on criteria which had been improved in the light of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-508/15, Republic of Lithuania v Commission, the results led to an accurate estimation of the actual harm caused to EU funds, and the scale of the non-compliance was so small that the Commission was entirely able to discontinue the investigation.


(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/859 of 16 June 2020 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 2020 L 195, p. 59).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9881 – Charlesbank/TA/Vista/Aptean/Yaletown) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 280/01
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2020280EN.01000101.xml










25.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9881 – Charlesbank/TA/Vista/Aptean/Yaletown)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 280/01)
On 18 August 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 32020M9881. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-523/20: Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, electronic publishing, employment service, legal aid, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01002801.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/28






Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)
(Case T-523/20)
(2020/C 339/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Setarcos Consulting Ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: S. Stafylakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Blockchain Island — Application for registration No 18 027 834

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 2806/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 17 August 2020 2020/C 273/03
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020273EN.01000301.xml










18.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 August 2020
(2020/C 273/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1853 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,99 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4470 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90625 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3108 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0765 




ISK


Iceland króna


161,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5120 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,140 




HUF


Hungarian forint


348,53 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3966 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8343 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,7656 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6485 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5684 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1864 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8179 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6237 




KRW


South Korean won


1 405,87 




ZAR


South African rand


20,6764 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2262 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5300 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 638,45 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9688 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,693 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,1500 




THB


Thai baht


36,993 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4166 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0924 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6895 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-358/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA (Interim measures — Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Reimbursement of sums paid — Debit notes — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, principle of proportionality








C_2020371EN.01001601.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/16






Order of the President of the General Court of 18 August 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA
(Case T-358/20 R)
(Interim measures - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Reimbursement of sums paid - Debit notes - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
(2020/C 371/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of two debit notes issued by the REA on 7 May 2020 requiring payment by the applicant of the sum of EUR 188 477,27 no later than 22 June 2020.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 18 June 2020, Net Technologies Finland v REA (T-358/20 R) is cancelled.











3.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-393/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 18 August 2020 — T.B., D. sp. z o.o. v G.I. A/S
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, claim, damages, insurance company, jurisdiction, private international law, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2020423EN.01002401.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 18 August 2020 — T.B., D. sp. z o.o. v G.I. A/S
(Case C-393/20)
(2020/C 423/35)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: T.B., D. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: G.I. A/S

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13(2), in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a person who, in return for services provided to a party directly injured in a road accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies and who brought an action, in the court for the place where he is established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in another Member State?










2.


Must Article 7(2) or Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a person who acquired, under an assignment agreement, a claim from a party injured in a road accident in order to bring a civil-liability action before a court of the Member State in which the accident occurred against the insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in a Member State other than the Member State in which the accident occurred?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1–32.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9922 – GHO/MIC/Envision) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 273/04
Date: 2020-08-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control, software








C_2020273EN.01000401.xml










18.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9922 – GHO/MIC/Envision)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 273/04)

1.   
On 10 August 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:






—


GHO Capital Fund II LP (‘GHO’, Cayman Islands),










—


Mubadala Investment Company PJSC (‘Mubadala’, United Arab Emirates),










—


Envision Pharma Group Limited (‘Envision’, United Kingdom).




GHO and Mubadala acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Envision.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GHO: private equity firm focused on making buyout and growth equity investments in Europe in the healthcare industry,










—


for Mubadala: company investing globally and actively managing a diversified portfolio across a variety of sectors,










—


for Envision: medical consultancy and software company.






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.9922 – GHO/MIC/Envision
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.