do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10136 —PGGM/Arcus/AMP/Alpha Trains) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/13
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2021032EN.01001801.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10136 —PGGM/Arcus/AMP/Alpha Trains)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 32/13)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


Stichting Depositary PGGM Infrastructure Funds, part of the PGGM Group (‘PGGM’, Netherlands);










—


Arcus European Investment Manager LLP (‘Arcus’, United Kingdom);










—


AMP Capital Investors (‘UK’) Limited (‘AMP’, United Kingdom); and










—


Alpha Trains (Luxembourg) Holdings S.à.r.l. (‘Alpha Trains’, Luxembourg).




PGGM, Arcus and AMP acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Alpha Trains.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PGGM: pensions management for different pension funds, the affiliated employers and their employees;










—


for Arcus: independent fund manager specialising in European infrastructure;










—


for AMP: investment manager operating across a broad range of asset classes worldwide;










—


for Alpha Train: specialist train leasing company providing rolling stock to both public and private operators in a number of countries across continental Europe.






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.10136 —PGGM/Arcus/AMP/Alpha Trains
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 T-56/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — TEAG v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01003702.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/37






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — TEAG v Commission
(Case T-56/21)
(2021/C 138/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TEAG Thüringer Energie AG (Erfurt, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/12
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, frozen product, investment company, merger control, processed food product, refrigerated product








C_2021032EN.01001701.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 32/12)

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:






—


Pamplona Capital Management LLP (‘Pamplona Capital’, United Kingdom),










—


Signature Foods Holding B.V. (‘Signature Foods’, the Netherlands), indirectly controlled by IK Investment Partners.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Pamplona Capital: global private equity investment firm,










—


for Signature Foods: manufacturing, producing and distributing a variety of branded and private label consumer and professional chilled and frozen food products across Northern Europe.






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.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods
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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10130—APG/Arcus/PSP/Alpha Trains) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/10
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle rental








C_2021032EN.01001301.xml










29.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10130—APG/Arcus/PSP/Alpha Trains)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 32/10)

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:






—


APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’, Netherlands);










—


Arcus European Investment Manager LLP (‘Arcus’, United Kingdom);










—


Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSP’, Canada); and










—


Alpha Trains (Luxembourg) Holdings S.à.r.l. (‘Alpha Trains’, Luxembourg).




APG, Arcus and PSP acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Alpha Trains.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for APG: asset manager with global investments on behalf of Dutch pension funds;










—


for Arcus: independent fund manager specialising in European infrastructure;










—


for PSP: pension investment manager with a diversified global portfolio;










—


for Alpha Trains: specialist train leasing company providing rolling stock to both public and priate operators in a number of countries across continental Europe.






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.10130—APG/Arcus/PSP/Alpha Trains
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 T-61/21: Action brought on 29 January 2021 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2021138EN.01004001.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/40






Action brought on 29 January 2021 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission
(Case T-61/21)
(2021/C 138/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16);










—


order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s lawyers’ and travel costs incurred as a result of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-53/21, EVH v Commission.
Case C-66/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2021-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, removal, residence permit, return migration, trafficking in human beings








C_2021163EN.01001202.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 29 January 2021 — O.T. E. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-66/21)
(2021/C 163/17)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: O.T. E.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC (1) commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities?










(b)


Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking?














2.


Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State?










3.








(a)


Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article?










(b)


Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement?










(1)  Council Directive of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19).