do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10121 — Platinum Equity Group/Ingram Micro Inc.) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 73/04
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, electronic commerce, information technology, logistics, merger control








C_2021073EN.01000401.xml










2.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10121 — Platinum Equity Group/Ingram Micro Inc.)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 73/04)

1.   
On 23 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:






—


Platinum Equity Group (USA),










—


Ingram Micro Inc. (‘IM’, USA).




Platinum Equity Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of IM.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Platinum Equity Group: merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide products, services and solutions in a broad range of businesses, including information technology, telecommunications, logistics, metal services, manufacturing and distribution,










—


for IM: IT company that specialises in technology distribution and logistics, cloud solutions and e-commerce supply chain 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.10121 — Platinum Equity Group/Ingram Micro Inc.
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 C-143/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2021 by Production Christian Gallimard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-863/19, Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, software, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021297EN.01001503.xml










26.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/15






Appeal brought on 2 March 2021 by Production Christian Gallimard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-863/19, Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard
(Case C-143/21 P)
(2021/C 297/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Production Christian Gallimard (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA
By order of 5 May 2021 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Production Christian Gallimard shall bear its own costs.
Case C-425/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia (Appeal — State aid — Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members — Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Whether imputable to the State — State resources — Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable — Distortion of elements of fact and of law — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, bank, central bank, consortium, control of State aid, credit guarantee, reimbursement of aid








C_2021148EN.01000401.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia
(Case C-425/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members - Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Whether imputable to the State - State resources - Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable - Distortion of elements of fact and of law - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)
(2021/C 148/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and by D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato), Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA, formerly Tercas-Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo SpA (Banca Tercas SpA) (represented initially by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo, E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, avvocati, and subsequently by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo and E. Gambaro, avvocati), Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, G. Faella and A. Comino, avvocati), Banca d’Italia (represented by: M. Perassi, M. Todino, L. Sciotto and O. Capolino, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Case C-131/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against KI
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, fine, imprisonment, public prosecution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021182EN.01004401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/44






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against KI
(Case C-131/21)
(2021/C 182/58)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Party to the main proceedings

KI

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — interpreted in the light of Article 4 of the Additional Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 1950, and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights — to initiate a criminal prosecution which is based, in part, on facts in respect of which the defendant has already, in administrative proceedings leading to sanctions and by a final decision, been given an on-the-spot fine which, as a result of non-payment, was converted by means of a court decision into a custodial sentence?
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 1 March 2021 2021/C 73/03
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021073EN.01000301.xml










2.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

1 March 2021
(2021/C 73/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2053 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,63 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86558 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1833 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1014 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3600 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,087 




HUF


Hungarian forint


362,86 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5263 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8749 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,7175 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5570 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5274 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3498 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6629 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6042 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,80 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1498 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7970 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5775 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 254,29 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8881 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,531 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,3155 




THB


Thai baht


36,436 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7244 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,0317 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6665 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-130/21: Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, foodstuff, packaging product, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, retail trade, sanction (EU)








C_2021148EN.01002501.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/25






Action brought on 2 March 2021 — CCPL and Others v Commission
(Case T-130/21)
(2021/C 148/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC (Reggio Emilia, Italy), Coopbox Group SpA (Bibbiano, Italy), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Cucchiara and E. Rocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the fine imposed on the applicants; or










—


in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine; and, in any event










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against European Commission Decision C(2020) 8969 final of 17 December 2020, in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, which concerns infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
In support of the action, the applicants relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).






—


The applicants claim in that regard that the value taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the 10 % limit laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation (CE) No 1/2003 is clearly wrong, since that figure includes the total turnover of the CCPL group, even though the Commission has by no means proved the parental liability of the group’s parent company.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in determining the size of the penalty.






—


The applicants claim in that regard that the fine imposed on them is clearly and unjustifiably disproportionate compared with that imposed on the other parties. The mechanical application of the 10 % limit for each of the alleged infringements is contrary to the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, as well as the principles that fines should be specific to the individual and progressive.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since it took into account only partially the evidence which concerns the inability to pay adduced by the CCPL group.






—


The applicants claim in that regard, that the contested decision, even though it acknowledges that the applicants are facing a very serious crisis, did not take that situation sufficiently into account in setting the level of the penalty.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/2131 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the elimination of customs duties on certain goods (Official Journal of the European Union L 430 of 18 December 2020)
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: United States, common customs tariff, customs duties, export (EU), import (EU), most favoured nation, originating product, suspension of customs duties, tariff preference, trade relations








L_2021071EN.01002401.xml










2.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 71/24







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/2131 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the elimination of customs duties on certain goods

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 430 of 18 December 2020
)


On page 3, Article 5(4):
for:







‘4.


At the request of the economic operators concerned, the national customs authorities of the Member States concerned shall reimburse any duties paid in excess of those applicable in accordance with this Regulation for imports from the United States between 1 August 2020 and 18 December 2020.’,





read:







‘4.


At the request of the economic operators concerned, the national customs authorities of the Member States concerned shall reimburse any duties paid in excess of those applicable in accordance with this Regulation for imports between 1 August 2020 and 18 December 2020.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10152 — Temasek/Gategrup) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 82/02
Date: 2021-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021082EN.01000201.xml










11.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10152 — Temasek/Gategrup)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 82/02)
On 2 March 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 32021M10152. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.