do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10076 — Cinven/Raffles/Miller) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 31/09
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, indemnity insurance, investment company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2021031EN.01005001.xml










28.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/50






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10076 — Cinven/Raffles/Miller)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 31/09)

1.   
On 21 January 2021, 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:






—


Cinven Capital Management (SFF) General Partner Limited (‘Cinven’) (Guernsey),










—


Raffles Private Holdings Limited (‘Raffles’) (United Kingdom), controlled by GIC Private Limited (‘GIC’) (United Kingdom),










—


Miller Insurance Services LLP (‘Miller’) (United Kingdom).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Cinven is a private equity business primarily active in the provision of management and advisory services to investment funds.










—


Raffles is an investment vehicle of GIC, which manages a diversified global portfolio of investments in private equity, venture capital and infrastructure funds, as well as direct investments in private companies.










—


Miller is active in the provision of non-life insurance and reinsurance broking 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.
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.10076 — Cinven/Raffles/Miller
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.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/126 of 28 January 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Rudarska greblica’ (PGI)
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: County of Zagreb, Croatia, bread, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2021040EN.01000201.xml










4.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 40/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/126
of 28 January 2021
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Rudarska greblica’ (PGI)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Rudarska greblica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Rudarska greblica’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Rudarska greblica’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 309, 18.9.2020, p. 17.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-466/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision to request information — Necessity of the information requested — Proportionality — Burden of proof — Self-incrimination)
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, disclosure of information, dominant position, electronic component, electronic device, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2021088EN.01001001.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/10






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission
(Case C-466/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Proportionality - Burden of proof - Self-incrimination)
(2021/C 88/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, avocat, and M. Davilla, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-55/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD
Date: 2021-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, excise duty, tax rebate, tobacco








C_2021128EN.01002302.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD
(Case C-55/21)
(2021/C 128/29)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Respondent in cassation:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 and Article 17(1)(b) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (2) of 21 June 2011 to be interpreted as imposing on Member States an obligation to adopt rules for the reimbursement of excise duty, including on manufactured tobacco that has been released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can the persons concerned rely on the direct effect of the provisions of the directives and the principles of EU law where a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation to adopt such rules?










3.


If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, does the direct effect of the abovementioned provisions confer entitlement, on the basis of the facts established in the present case, to reimbursement of the excise duty paid on the basis solely of the request and without any further formal requirements?






(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

(2)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).