do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9957 — Advent International/Otto/Hermes Parcelnet/Hermes Germany) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 352/02
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: delivery, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade, service








C_2020352EN.01001301.xml










22.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/13






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9957 — Advent International/Otto/Hermes Parcelnet/Hermes Germany)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 352/02)
On 19 October 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 32020M9957. 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.9904 — SCUK/Volvo/Volvo Car Financial Services JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 354/01
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, parent company, vehicle parts








C_2020354EN.01000101.xml










23.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9904 — SCUK/Volvo/Volvo Car Financial Services JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 354/01)
On 19 October 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 32020M9904. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1482 of 14 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons (Official Journal of the European Union L 341 of 15 October 2020)
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, chemical weapon, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, non-proliferation of arms








L_2020344EN.01003501.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 344/35







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1482 of 14 October 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 341 of 15 October 2020
)


On page 11, in the Annex, first column of the table, 'Name':
for:







'11.


Sergei Vladilenovich KIRIYENKO
(Сергей Вадиленович КИРИЕНКО)',





read:







'11.


Sergei Vladilenovich KIRIYENKO
(Сергей Владиленович КИРИЕНКО)'
Case C-526/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — IO and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021028EN.01001901.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — IO and Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-526/20)
(2021/C 28/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: IO, SP, DR

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?


(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bulgaria, Mediterranean region (EU), Romania, Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2020344EN.01000101.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 344/1







Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

The abovementioned Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia, signed in Luxembourg on 14 April 2014, entered into force on 1 October 2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9937 — BC Partners/Sofima/IMA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 361/01
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, mechanical engineering, merger control, packaging, real estate business








C_2020361EN.01000101.xml










27.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9937 — BC Partners/Sofima/IMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 361/01)
On 19 October 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 32020M9937. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-529/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — AP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021028EN.01002002.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — AP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-529/20)
(2021/C 28/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AP

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?


(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10003 — DWS/Vertex Bioenergy) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 347/11
Date: 2020-10-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Spain, biofuel, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020347EN.01001301.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10003 — DWS/Vertex Bioenergy)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 347/11)

1.   
On 8 October 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:






—


DWS Alternatives Global Limited (‘DWS’, United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Deutsche Bank AG (‘DB’, Germany),










—


Vertex Bioenergy, S.L. (‘Vertex’, Spain), ultimately controlled by Trilantic Capital Partners (‘Trilantic’, the US).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DWS: an asset management company with a wide investment portfolio, which includes investments in infrastructure assets in Europe,










—


for Vertex: a producer of bioethanol with facilities in Spain and France. In connection with its bioethanol production, Vertex also produces dried distillers grains with solubles (or DDGS), carbon dioxide, corn oil, and electricity.






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.10003 — DWS/Vertex Bioenergy
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.