do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-830/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — C.J. v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 — Young farmers setting up — Farm development — Business start-up aid for young farmers — Conditions of access — Equivalence — Not setting up as sole head of the holding — Upper thresholds — Fixing — Criteria — Standard output of the agricultural holding)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, farm modernisation, rural development, start-up, young farmer








C_2021338EN.01000401.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — C.J. v Région wallonne
(Case C-830/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 - Young farmers setting up - Farm development - Business start-up aid for young farmers - Conditions of access - Equivalence - Not setting up as sole head of the holding - Upper thresholds - Fixing - Criteria - Standard output of the agricultural holding)
(2021/C 338/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C.J.

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 5 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 5 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the criterion for determining the upper threshold for enabling a young farmer, who is not setting up as sole head of the holding, to access business start-up aid is the standard gross output of the entire agricultural holding, and not simply that young farmer’s share in that holding.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10346 — ICG/Circet) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 272/07
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2021272EN.01003401.xml










8.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 272/34






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10346 — ICG/Circet)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 272/07)

1.   
On 30 June 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:






—


Intermediate Capital Group plc (‘ICG’, United Kingdom),










—


Circet Odyssée SAS (‘Circet’, France);




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ICG: investment firm active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and equity investments in various companies across Europe, Asia Pacific and the US; and










—


for Circet: a France-based network infrastructure services provider, active exclusively in the telecommunications sector. It offers a full range of services from design, engineering and installation to maintenance of telecommunication networks.






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.10346 — ICG/Circet
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.10271 - Lixil/Schüco/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 272/06
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, building materials, economic concentration, merger control, metal product








C_2021272EN.01003301.xml










8.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 272/33






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10271 - Lixil/Schüco/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 272/06)

1.   
On 30 June 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:






—


Lixil Corporation (‘Lixil’, Japan),










—


Schüco International KG (‘Schüco’, Germany), belonging to the group Otto Fuchs Beteiligungen KG (‘Otto Fuchs Group’, Germany),










—


Schueco Japan K.K. (‘JV’, Japan), an existing undertaking solely controlled by Schüco to be transformed to the joint venture.




Lixil and Schüco acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger-Regulation joint control of Schueco Japan K.K.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Lixil: Manufacturing of building materials and housing equipment.










—


for Schüco: Development and sale of system solutions made of aluminium, steel and uPVC for building envelopes.










—


for Schueco Japan K.K.: Design and sales of aluminium systems, products and services in the architectural construction segment in Japan.






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.10271 - Lixil/Schüco/JV
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-404/21: Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, admissibility, aid to undertakings, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), official language








C_2021349EN.01004801.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/48






Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB
(Case T-404/21)
(2021/C 349/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9971 – P27 NPP / BANKGIROT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 483/05
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, financial services, international payment, merger control, payment system








C_2021483EN.01000501.xml










1.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 483/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9971 – P27 NPP / BANKGIROT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 483/05)
On 8 July 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 policy’ 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 32021M9971. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-937/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — KA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 1(5)(d) — Article 8 — International carriage of goods by road from one Member State to another Member State — Cabotage operations following that international carriage in the territory of the latter Member State — Restrictions — Requirement of a Community licence and, where appropriate, a carriage authorisation — Exemptions — Cabotage operations following an international carriage on one’s own account — Conditions)
Date: 2021-07-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, carriage of goods, international road transport, international transport, road cabotage, transport authorisation, transport company








C_2021338EN.01000402.xml










23.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/4






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — KA
(Case C-937/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 - Article 1(5)(d) - Article 8 - International carriage of goods by road from one Member State to another Member State - Cabotage operations following that international carriage in the territory of the latter Member State - Restrictions - Requirement of a Community licence and, where appropriate, a carriage authorisation - Exemptions - Cabotage operations following an international carriage on one’s own account - Conditions)
(2021/C 338/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

KA

Interveners: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market must be interpreted as meaning that a haulier who has carried out an international carriage of goods on its own account, for the purposes of Article 1(5)(d) of that regulation, from one Member State to another Member State, is permitted, under Article 8(6) of that regulation, to carry out cabotage operations following that international carriage within the territory of the latter Member State, subject, nevertheless, to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.