do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10152 — Temasek/Gategroup) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 49/07
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021049EN.01000701.xml










12.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10152 — Temasek/Gategroup)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 49/07)

1.   
On 5 February 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:






—


Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (‘Temasek’, Singapore);










—


gategroup Holding AG (‘Gategroup’, Switzerland), currently jointly controlled by Temasek and RRJ Capital Master Fund III, L.P. (‘RRJ’, Hong Kong)




Temasek acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Gategroup.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Temasek: investment company headquartered in Singapore, mainly active in Singapore and the rest of Asia. Its investments cover a broad spectrum of industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, transportation, real estate, energy and life sciences.










—


for Gategroup: active in provision of in-flight catering and retail onboard services and related services. Gategroup is active in over 60 countries across all continents, including in the EEA.






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.10152 — Temasek/Gategroup
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-507/20: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — Colombani v EEAS
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, North Macedonia, South Korea, Union delegation, Uzbekistan, appointment of staff, equal treatment, personal data, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021138EN.01005302.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/53






Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — Colombani v EEAS
(Case T-507/20) (1)

(2021/C 138/72)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 58/02
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, frozen product, investment company, merger control, processed food product, refrigerated product








C_2021058EN.01003101.xml










18.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/31






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10142 — Pamplona Capital/Signature Foods)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 58/02)
On 12 February 2021, 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 32021M10142. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10112 — CVC/Riverstone Europe) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 59/01
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control, subsidiary








C_2021059EN.01000101.xml










19.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10112 — CVC/Riverstone Europe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 59/01)
On 12 February 2021, 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 32021M10112. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-511/19: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — Staciwa v Commission
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, equal treatment, severance pay








C_2021138EN.01005202.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/52






Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — Staciwa v Commission
(Case T-511/19) (1)

(2021/C 138/70)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case T-19/20: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark I love — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Inapplicability of Article 16(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Admissibility of evidence — Article 97(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Impartiality — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, clothing, footwear industry, glass, household article, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021138EN.01003102.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/31






Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love)
(Case T-19/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark I love - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Inapplicability of Article 16(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Admissibility of evidence - Article 97(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Impartiality - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 138/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: sprd.net AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Shirtlabor GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Wallscheid, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2019 (Case R 5/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shirtlabor and sprd.net.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


sprd.net AG shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).










3.


Shirtlabor GmbH shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case T-88/21: Action brought on 12 February 2021 –Paesen v EEAS
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, demotion, fundamental rights, harassment at work, indemnification, middle management, probationary period, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021138EN.01004501.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/45






Action brought on 12 February 2021 –Paesen v EEAS
(Case T-88/21)
(2021/C 138/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sandra Paesen (Beersel, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 10 April 2020 on re-assignment to a non-managerial post and, alternatively, annul the end of probation report confirmed by that decision;










—


annul the Appointing Authority’s decision dated 12 May 2020 rejecting the request for assistance of the complainant submitted on 17 January 2020 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;










—


annul, where necessary, the decision of 4 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment and unlawful actions by the administration;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, so far as concerns the annulment aspect, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights to good administration, of the right to be heard, manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Decision on middle management staff C (2008) 5028/2 and the decision of the Secretary General of EEAS of 15 November 2019 on the exercise and subdelegation of powers entrusted to the Appointing Authority and to the AECE ADMIN (2019) 31, and manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, and manifest error of assessment.










—


Second part, alleging failure to observe Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of assessment.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of dignity and decent working conditions and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the prohibition of any form of psychological harassment.
Case T-92/21: Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Darment v. Commission
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, access to EU information, fluorine, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, sanction (EU), tradeable emission permit








C_2021128EN.01004301.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/43






Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Darment v. Commission
(Case T-92/21)
(2021/C 128/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision to reduce the quota allocated to the applicant for the year 2021 for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market about which the applicant was informed via F-Gas Portal System of the defendant on 15 December 2020 and by the email of 12 January 2021;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 266 TFEU by imposing the penalty on the applicant even though the Court annulled the defendant’s decision finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of HFC on the market and imposing the penalty on it;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) 517/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, by continuing to impose the Penalty to the applicant.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195)
Joint Declaration of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on an instrument to deter and counteract coercive actions by third countries 2021/C 49/01
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, World Trade Organisation, international trade, international trade law, settlement of disputes, third country, trade dispute








C_2021049EN.01000101.xml










12.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1






Joint Declaration of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on an instrument to deter and counteract coercive actions by third countries
(2021/C 49/01)
The Commission takes note of the concerns of the Parliament and Member States as to the practices of certain third countries to seek to coerce the Union and/or its Member States to take or withdraw particular policy measures. The Commission shares the view that such practices raise significant concerns. The Commission confirms its intention to further examine a possible instrument, which could be adopted in order to dissuade or offset coercive actions by third countries and which would allow the expeditious adoption of countermeasures triggered by such actions. The Commission intends to continue its assessment and on the basis of that assessment, taking into account all relevant circumstances, adopt a legislative proposal providing for a mechanism allowing to dissuade or offset such actions in a manner consistent with international law. As announced in the Letter of Intent of the President of the Commission to the President of the Parliament and President in office of the Council of 16 September 2020 the Commission shall adopt the proposal in any case no later than the end of 2021, or earlier, should the need arise as a result of coercive action taken by a third country.
The Council and the European Parliament take note of the intention of the Commission to submit a proposal for an instrument to deter and counteract coercive actions by third countries. Both institutions are committed to fulfil their institutional role as co-legislators and to consider the proposal in a timely manner, taking into account the Union’s obligations under public international law and WTO law as well as relevant developments in international trade.
Case C-88/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Information System, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data, vehicle documents, vehicle registration








C_2021163EN.01001401.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija
(Case C-88/21)
(2021/C 163/19)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Party to the main proceedings

Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as imposing an obligation to prohibit the registration of objects for which an alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System notwithstanding the fact that the alert is no longer relevant (the vehicle has been located; the criminal procedure in the Member State where the vehicle was located has been discontinued in the absence of a criminal offence committed in that Member State; the State that entered the alert has been informed but fails to take action to remove the alert from the system)?










2.


Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as obliging a Member State which has located an object for which an alert was issued pursuant to Article 38(1) of the decision to lay down rules of national law that would prohibit any actions with the located object other than actions by which an objective referred to in Article 38 (seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings) would be attained?










3.


Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), in particular Article 39(3), be interpreted as allowing Member States to lay down legal rules which would provide for exceptions to the prohibition on registering vehicles for which an alert has been entered in SIS pursuant to Article 38 of the decision, after the competent authorities of the Member State have taken steps in order for the State which entered the alert to be informed about the located object?
Commission declaration on compliance with international law 2021/C 49/03
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Dispute Settlement Body, commercial arbitration, international arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international trade law, trade dispute








C_2021049EN.01000301.xml










12.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/3






Commission declaration on compliance with international law
(2021/C 49/03)
When the Union brings a dispute under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) against another Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Commission will make every reasonable effort to obtain, as early as possible, the agreement of that Member to resort to arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU as an interim appeal procedure, which preserves the essential features of appeals before the Appellate Body (the ‘appeal arbitration procedure’), as long as the Appellate Body is unable to fully resume its functions in accordance with Article 17 of the DSU.
When adopting implementing acts pursuant to Article 3(aa) of the Regulation, the Commission will act in accordance with the requirements of the international law on countermeasures, as codified in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission.
In particular, before adopting implementing acts pursuant to Article 3(aa), the Commission will call upon the WTO Member concerned to implement the panel’s findings and recommendations, notify that WTO Member of the Union’s intention to take countermeasures and reiterate its openness to negotiate a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the requirements of the DSU.
When implementing acts have already been adopted pursuant to Article 3(aa), the Commission will suspend their application if the Appellate Body resumes its functions in respect to the case concerned in accordance with Article 17 of the DSU, or if an interim appeal procedure is initiated, provided that such procedure is pursued in good faith.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10076 — Cinven/Raffles/Miller) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 63/01
Date: 2021-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, indemnity insurance, investment company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2021063EN.01000101.xml










23.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10076 — Cinven/Raffles/Miller)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 63/01)
On 12 February 2021, 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 32021M10076. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.