do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10132 — Blackstone/B&J/Applegreen) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 71/04
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2021071EN.01005701.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/57






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10132 — Blackstone/B&J/Applegreen)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 71/04)
On 22 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 32021M10132. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/284 of 22 February 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/346 appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: appointment of members, diplomatic representation, human rights




L_2021062EN.01004901.xml










23.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 62/49








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/284
of 22 February 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/346 appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 33 and Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 28 February 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/346 (1) appointing Mr Eamon GILMORE as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights. The EUSR’s mandate is to expire on 28 February 2021.












(2)


The EUSR’s mandate should be extended for a further period of 24 months and a new financial reference amount for the period from 1 March 2021 to 28 February 2023 should be established.












(3)


The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision (CFSP) 2019/346 is amended as follows:






(1)


Article 1 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1
European Union Special Representative
The mandate of Mr Eamon GILMORE as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights is extended until 28 February 2023. The Council may decide that the EUSR's mandate be terminated earlier, based on an assessment of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).’;











(2)


in Article 5(1), the following subparagraph is added:

                              ‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the EUSR's mandate for the period from 1 March 2021 to 28 February 2023 shall be EUR 2 690 000,00;’;










(3)


in Article 12, the second sentence is replaced by the following:

                              ‘The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with regular progress reports and a final comprehensive mandate implementation report by 30 November 2022.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 February 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/346 of 28 February 2019 appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights (OJ L 62, 1.3.2019, p. 12).
Case C-107/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ZR
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carriage of passengers, civil aviation, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021182EN.01003401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ZR
(Case C-107/21)
(2021/C 182/48)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: ZR

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).
Case C-108/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v NB
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021391EN.01000301.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v NB
(Case C-108/21)
(2021/C 391/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: NB

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)?
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.


(1)  Regulation 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).
Case C-109/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, consultancy, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021289EN.01002102.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/21






Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)
(Case C-109/21 P)
(2021/C 289/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: H.R. Participations SA (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hottinger Investment Management Ltd
By order of 2 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that H.R. Participations SA should bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10190 — OTPP/KKR/Caruna Group) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 61/06
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: credit, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, real estate business








C_2021061EN.01000601.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10190 — OTPP/KKR/Caruna Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 61/06)

1.   
On 15 Febuary 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:






—


Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada),










—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, USA),










—


Caruna Group (Finland).




OTPP and KKR acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Caruna Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for OTPP: the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets of teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario,










—


for KKR: a global investment firm that manages multiple alternative asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate and credit,










—


for Caruna Group: it operates an electricity distribution network for approximately 700,000 customers in South, Southwest and West Finland, as well as in the city of Joensuu, the sub-region of Koillismaa and Satakunta.






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.10190 — OTPP/KKR/Caruna Group
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.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/286 of 22 February 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Middle East, Palestine question, diplomatic representation, settlement of disputes, the EU's international role




L_2021062EN.01005301.xml










23.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 62/53








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/286
of 22 February 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 33 and Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 18 September 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 (1) appointing Ms Susanna TERSTAL as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP).












(2)


On 25 February 2020, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/250 (2) extending the mandate of Ms Susanna TERSTAL as the EUSR for the MEPP. The EUSR's mandate is to expire on 28 February 2021.












(3)


The mandate of the EUSR for the MEPP should be extended for a further period of two months, within the financial reference amount set out in Article 5(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/250.












(4)


The EUSR for the MEPP will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 is replaced by the following:


‘Article 1
European Union Special Representative
The mandate of Ms Susanna TERSTAL as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) is extended until 30 April 2021.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 February 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 of 18 September 2018 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process (OJ L 235, 19.9.2018, p. 9).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/250 of 25 February 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1248 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process (OJ L 54 I , 26.2.2020, p. 3).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/325 of 22 February 2021 on the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








L_2021064EN.01000601.xml










24.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 64/6








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2021/325
of 22 February 2021
         
on the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (1), and in particular Article 26(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 October 2013 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.












(2)


The planning and execution of the tasks conferred on the ECB should be fully undertaken by its Supervisory Board, which is composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair and four representatives of the ECB, as well as one representative of the national competent authority in each participating Member State.












(3)


The Supervisory Board is an essential body in the exercise of supervisory tasks performed by the ECB within the Single Supervisory Mechanism. Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 therefore conferred upon the Council the power to appoint the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board.












(4)


On 4 October 2019 the Council appointed Mr Yves MERSCH as Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board by means of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1671 (2). The term of office of the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board ended on 14 December 2020.












(5)


In accordance with Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the ECB, after hearing the Supervisory Board, is to submit to the European Parliament a proposal for the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board, who is to be chosen from among the members of the Executive Board of the ECB. The ECB submitted such a proposal on 18 December 2020, and the European Parliament approved it on 8 February 2021,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Frank ELDERSON is hereby appointed as Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank for a period of five years from 24 February 2021.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 22 February 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  
            OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.

(2)  Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1671 of 4 October 2019 on the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank (OJ L 256, 7.10.2019, p. 8).
Case T-116/21: Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, gaming establishment, online game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021148EN.01002202.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/22






Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)
(Case T-116/21)
(2021/C 148/31)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WILD — European Union trade mark No 9 515 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 932/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-106/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carriage of passengers, civil aviation, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021182EN.01003301.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BC
(Case C-106/21)
(2021/C 182/47)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: BC

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees which 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).
Case T-161/15: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB (Action for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, damages, economic discrimination, economic policy, economic stabilisation, equal treatment, financial aid, ownership, principle of proportionality, stability programme








C_2022171EN.01003601.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/36






Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB
(Case T-161/15) (1)

(Action for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 171/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and the 18 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Nowinski, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and S. Delaude, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the decision of the Commission and the ECB to subject to certain conditions the grant of a financial assistance facility to the Republic of Cyprus.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.