do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10362 — KKR/CD&R/Cloudera) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 293/05
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control, software








C_2021293EN.01000801.xml










23.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10362 — KKR/CD&R/Cloudera)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 293/05)

1.   
On 16 July 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, USA),










—


Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Fund XI, L.P. (‘CD&R’, USA),










—


Cloudera, Inc. (‘Cloudera’, USA).




KKR and CD&R acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Cloudera.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions,










—


for CD&R: a private equity investment firm which originates, structures and acts as a lead equity investor in management buyouts, strategic minority equity investments and other strategic investments,










—


for Cloudera: a provider of multi-function data management and analytics software, including flow management, streams management, data engineering, data warehousing, streaming analytics, operational databases and machine learning.






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.10362 — KKR/CD&R/Cloudera
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.10102 — VIG/AEGON CEE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 293/04
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, merger control, pension fund








C_2021293EN.01000601.xml










23.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10102 — VIG/AEGON CEE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 293/04)

1.   
On 15 July 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:






—


Vienna Insurance Group AG Wiener Versicherung Gruppe (‘VIG’; Austria),










—


AEGON Hungary Holding B.V., AEGON Hungary Holding II B.V., AEGON Poland/Romania Holding B.V., and AEGON Turkey Holding B.V. (together ‘AEGON CEE’).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


VIG is the holding company of Vienna Insurance Group, an international insurance group headquartered in Vienna, Austria. It conducts its business through subsidiaries and branches in 30 countries. VIG mainly offers life and non-life insurance services,










—


AEGON CEE encompasses the Hungarian, Polish, Romanian and Turkish businesses of Aegon N.V. (the Netherlands). Aegon CEE is active in the fields of life and non-life insurance, pension fund business, asset management services and related ancillary 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.



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.10102 — VIG/AEGON CEE
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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10354 — Macquarie/Beauparc Utilities) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 301/02
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, electricity supply, financial services, gas supply, investment, merger control, retail trade, waste management, wholesale trade








C_2021301EN.01000201.xml










28.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10354 — Macquarie/Beauparc Utilities)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 301/02)
On 23 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 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 32021M10354. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-455/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 23 July 2021 — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, mechanical engineering, private international law, residence, unfair terms of contract








C_2021452EN.01000902.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 452/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 23 July 2021 — OZ v Lyoness Europe AG
(Case C-455/21)
(2021/C 452/10)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: OZ

Respondent: Lyoness Europe AG

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, who is a mechanical engineer specialising in hydraulic and pneumatic machinery (who does not engage in trade as an occupation and in particular in the purchase of goods and services for resale and/or in intermediation activities) and who concludes with a commercial company (a seller or supplier) a pre-formulated standard contract under which that natural person is entitled to participate in a shopping community set up by that company in the form of the Lyoness system (a system which promises economic returns in the form of refunds on purchases, commission and other promotional benefits), to purchase goods and services from traders who have a contractual relationship with that company (called ‘Lyoness business partners’), and to act as an intermediary with other persons within the Lyoness system (known as ‘potential loyalty customers’), be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the contractual term which provides that Swiss law alone is to apply to the contractual relationship between Lyoness and the customer, irrespective of the customer’s place of domicile, in order to ensure effective consumer protection?










2.


Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a person who has concluded with a seller or supplier a contract having a dual purpose, namely [where] the contract is concluded for purposes which partly fall within the scope of the trade, business or profession of that person and partly outside, and the trade, business or professional purpose of that natural person is not predominant in the overall context of the contract, can be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision?










3.


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, what are the main criteria to be applied in determining whether or not the trade, business or professional purpose of that natural person is predominant in the overall context of the contract?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10313 — CVC/CDPQ/WAVS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 303/02
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, investment company, marketing, means of communication, merger control, pension scheme, provision of services








C_2021303EN.01000301.xml










29.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10313 — CVC/CDPQ/WAVS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 303/02)
On 23 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 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 32021M10313. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1245 of 23 July 2021 approving amendments to the specification for a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (‘Coteaux du Pont du Gard’ (PGI))
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Languedoc-Roussillon, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, still wine, white wine








L_2021272EN.01002901.xml










30.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 272/29








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2021/1245
of 23 July 2021
         
approving amendments to the specification for a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (‘Coteaux du Pont du Gard’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Coteaux du Pont du Gard’, submitted pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(2)


The Commission published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Coteaux du Pont du Gard’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 July 2021.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 112, 30.3.2021, p. 2.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10268 — SYNNEX/Tech Data) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 303/03
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, logistics, merger control, technology, wholesale trade








C_2021303EN.01000401.xml










29.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10268 — SYNNEX/Tech Data)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 303/03)
On 23 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 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 32021M10268. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-444/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Finland, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2021357EN.01003401.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/34






Action brought on 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-444/21)
(2021/C 357/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 12 March 2021 on State Aid SA.60113 — Finnair — COVID-19 — hybrid loan 107.2.b; (1) and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four plea(s) in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.






(1)  OJ 2021, C 240, p. 14.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 22 July 2021 2021/C 293/02
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021293EN.01000201.xml










23.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 July 2021
(2021/C 293/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1775 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,83 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4382 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85563 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2245 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0829 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3795 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,639 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,87 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5661 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9227 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0717 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5959 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4779 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1506 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6906 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6020 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,59 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1449 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6153 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5320 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 063,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9726 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,921 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,9522 




THB


Thai baht


38,704 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1029 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7290 




INR


Indian rupee


87,6615 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-441/21: Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission
Date: 2021-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Eurobond, bank, bond, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), turnover








C_2021412EN.01001302.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/13






Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission
(Case T-441/21)
(2021/C 412/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: UBS Group AG (Zurich, Switzerland), UBS AG (Zurich) (represented by: D. Wood and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare the Application admissible and well-founded, and annul the Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 C(2021) 3489 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40324 — European Government Bonds); or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine to € 51,3 million in accordance with UBS’ net value traded methodology; or reduce it to € 60,6 million in accordance with UBS’ adjusted net value traded methodology; or reduce the fine by at least 65 % as a consequence of the errors and inaccuracies identified in the Commission’s methodology; and










—


Order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the costs of UBS.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the generally applicable EU rules for calculating the turnover of financial institutions, thus breaching the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has wrongly departed from the Fining Guidelines (1) in a way that was both arbitrary and insufficiently explained, in violation of the relevant case law and UBS’ rights of defence.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning supporting its choice of methodology.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to use the best available figures in calculating UBS’ value of sales.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied its own methodology in a manner which was materially flawed, and is vitiated by a number of material inaccuracies and errors which resulted in the imposition of a disproportionately high fine on UBS.






(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.