do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10418 - EFMS/Goldman Sachs/Parexel) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 417/09
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment bank, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2021417EN.01003001.xml










14.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/30






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M. 10418 - EFMS/Goldman Sachs/Parexel)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 417/09)

1.   
On 5 October 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:






—


EQT IX, controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. (‘EFMS’, Luxembourg);










—


The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA);










—


Parexel International Corporation (‘Parexel’, USA), solely controlled by Parexel Investment Holdings, L.P., which in turn is solely controlled by funds advised by Pamplona Investment Partners, L.P.




EFMS and Goldman Sachs acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Paraxel.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm,










—


EFMS is an EQT investment fund that seeks to make investments primarily in Europe, with a focus on Northern Europe,










—


Parexel carries out biopharmaceutical outsourcing services providing a comprehensive suite of Phase I to IV solutions to the world’s biopharmaceutical companies.






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. 10418 - EFMS/Goldman Sachs/Parexel
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10338 – GALILEO / M6 / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 430/02
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, distance learning, economic concentration, higher education, joint venture, merger control, vocational training








C_2021430EN.01000201.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10338 – GALILEO / M6 / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 430/02)
On 14 October 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 French 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 32021M10338. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1099 of 5 July 2021 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (Official Journal of the European Union L 238 of 6 July 2021)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, chemical product, consumer information, cosmetic product, health risk, product safety








L_2021365EN.01004601.xml










14.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 365/46







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1099 of 5 July 2021 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 238 of 6 July 2021
)


On page 31, in the Annex, point (2), in the first column of the table:
for:


                  ‘321’,

read:


                  ‘322’.
Case C-29/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ — Conditions — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Article 9(1)(a) — Approval of an active substance — Scope of approval)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biocide, market approval








C_2021502EN.01000602.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/6






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG
(Case C-29/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ - Conditions - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Article 9(1)(a) - Approval of an active substance - Scope of approval)
(2021/C 502/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Biofa AG

Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 334/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a product intended to destroy, deter or render harmless harmful organisms, which contains an active substance approved under an implementing regulation of the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) of that regulation, does not, solely because of that approval, come under the definition of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, with the result that it falls to the competent national court to ascertain whether that product satisfies all the conditions laid down by that provision in order to come under that definition. However, where the composition of that product is identical to the composition of the biocidal product presented as representative at the time of the application for approval of that active substance, that court is required to consider that that product comes under that definition.


(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-464/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre (Appeal — Institutional law — Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) — Members of the contract staff — Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant — Reopening of the investigation — Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, damages, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, servant (EU)








C_2021502EN.01001101.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/11






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre
(Case C-464/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) - Members of the contract staff - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant - Reopening of the investigation - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) - Action for annulment and for damages)
(2021/C 502/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Payan, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders KF to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-373/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie — Poland) — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Common rules — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 — Article 2(c) — Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ — Crop rotation — Natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection area)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agri-environmental plan, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, crop rotation, eligibility criteria, grassland, protected area, single payment scheme








C_2021502EN.01001001.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/10






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie — Poland) — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa
(Case C-373/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Crop rotation - Natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection area)
(2021/C 502/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers must be interpreted as meaning that meadows or pasture situated in a special protection area and which are subject to natural periodic flooding or submersion are not excluded from the concept of ‘permanent pasture’, within the meaning of that provision, since such flooding or submersion cannot, in themselves, cause a ‘crop rotation’ on the land concerned, within the meaning of that same provision.


(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10490 – BAIN CAPITAL / CTI / BBG HOLDING) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 463/03
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronics industry, investment company, merger control, product design, sale








C_2021463EN.01000301.xml










16.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10490 – BAIN CAPITAL / CTI / BBG HOLDING)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 463/03)
On 14 October 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 32021M10490. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-244/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 3(2) — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Survivors’ benefits — Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership — Exclusion clause — Validity — Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex — Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 — Inadmissibility — Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Non-discrimination on grounds of sex — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to property — Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, cohabitation, equal treatment, gender equality, ownership, sexual discrimination, survivor's benefit








C_2021502EN.01000901.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
(Case C-244/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 3(2) - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Survivors’ benefits - Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership - Exclusion clause - Validity - Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex - Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 - Inadmissibility - Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Non-discrimination on grounds of sex - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property - Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction)
(2021/C 502/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings


Appelant: F.C.I.

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia, Spain) is inadmissible;










2.


The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia).






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 October 2021 2021/C 417/03
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021417EN.01002201.xml










14.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/22






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 October 2021
(2021/C 417/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1562 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4407 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84898 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1195 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0722 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8555 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,369 




HUF


Hungarian forint


360,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5772 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9490 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,4833 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5722 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4386 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9952 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6647 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5646 




KRW


South Korean won


1 378,13 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1940 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4482 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5180 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 438,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8098 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,564 




RUB


Russian rouble


83,0248 




THB


Thai baht


38,478 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3814 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,9497 




INR


Indian rupee


87,1095 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10338 – GALILEO/M6/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 426/02
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, distance learning, economic concentration, higher education, joint venture, merger control, vocational training








C_2021426EN.01000401.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10338 – GALILEO/M6/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 426/02)
On 14 October 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 French 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 32021M10338. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-633/21: Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2021-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Attica, EU environmental policy, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law, oxide, pollution control, prevention of pollution








C_2021513EN.01002401.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/24






Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-633/21)
(2021/C 513/34)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






(A)


Declare that the Hellenic Republic:






—


first, by systematically and consistently exceeding the yearly limit values for nitrogen dioxide with regard to the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003) since 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/ΕC, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to the directive,










—


second, by failing to adopt, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the yearly limit value for NO2 in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive), and in particular the obligation, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to take the necessary measures so that that the duration of the exceedance of limit values is as short as possible.














(B)


Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Commission submits that Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe requires that Member States limit the exposure of citizens to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Commission claims that since 2005, when compliance with daily and annual limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) became mandatory, pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the Hellenic Republic, on the basis of the annual air quality reports submitted by it, has failed consistently to ensure compliance with daily limit values in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003).
By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC imposes a clear and urgent obligation on Member States in the event that limit values are exceeded to adopt air quality plans setting out appropriate measures to ensure that the duration of any exceedance is as short as possible. The Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic failed to draw up an appropriate air quality plan with regard to nitrogen dioxide covering the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), in breach of its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC.


(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).