do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10400 – ALTA PERCIER / BRIDGEPOINT / LATOUR / PRIMONIAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 451/04
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2021451EN.01000401.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10400 – ALTA PERCIER / BRIDGEPOINT / LATOUR / PRIMONIAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 451/04)
On 21 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 32021M10400. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-824/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 4(1) — Article 5 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 26 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Duties of juror in criminal proceedings — Blind person — Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, international convention, lay magistrate, physically disabled person








C_2021502EN.01000501.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA
(Case C-824/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Duties of juror in criminal proceedings - Blind person - Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)
(2021/C 502/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: TC, UB

Defendants: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

Interested party: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that a blind person be totally deprived of any possibility of performing the duties of a juror in criminal proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case C-373/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) and (j) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education — School or university education — Basic swimming tuition)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, education, physical education, tax exemption








C_2021502EN.01000301.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/3






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics
(Case C-373/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - School or university education - Basic swimming tuition)
(2021/C 502/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant: Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering swimming tuition provided by a swimming school.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10466 – Goldman Sachs/Eneos/NIPPO) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 426/11
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, building industry, economic concentration, energy industry, extraction of oil, gas industry, investment company, merger control, petroleum exploration, petroleum product








C_2021426EN.01001501.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10466 – Goldman Sachs/Eneos/NIPPO)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 426/11)

1.   
On 12 October 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (USA);










—


Eneos Holdings, Inc. (Japan);










—


NIPPO CORPORATION (Japan).




The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Eneos Holdings, Inc. acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over NIPPO CORPORATION.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a public bid announced on 7 September 2021.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.: global investment banking, securities and investment management, including a range of banking, securities and investment services to corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals;










—


for Eneos Holdings, Inc.: energy business, oil, metal and gas development;










—


for NIPPO CORPORATION: manufacture and sale of asphalt mixtures and construction.






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 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.10466 — Goldman Sachs/Eneos/NIPPO
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-894/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Administrative enquiry — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement for objective impartiality — Cross-appeal — Rejection of a request for assistance — Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, legal aid, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021513EN.01000902.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/9






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ
(Case C-894/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Administrative enquiry - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement for objective impartiality - Cross-appeal - Rejection of a request for assistance - Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard)
(2021/C 513/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;










3.


Orders UZ to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case C-825/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — End-use procedure — Authorisation with retroactive effect — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Union Customs Code — Article 211(2) — Scope ratione temporis — Conditions — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 294(2) — Scope)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs formalities, customs union, import licence








C_2021502EN.01000601.xml










13.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 502/6






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt
(Case C-825/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - End-use procedure - Authorisation with retroactive effect - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Article 211(2) - Scope ratione temporis - Conditions - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 294(2) - Scope)
(2021/C 502/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date.










2.


Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10360 – ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI / SOCIETÀ CATTOLICA DI ASSICURAZIONE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 129/03
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control, provision of services, real property








C_2022129EN.01001201.xml










22.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/12






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10360 – ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI / SOCIETÀ CATTOLICA DI ASSICURAZIONE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 129/03)
On 21 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 32021M10360. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2018 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function (Official Journal of the European Union L 315 of 5 December 2019)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cold store, consumer information, eco-label, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental impact, labelling, marketing standard








L_2021373EN.01009501.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 373/95







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2018 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of refrigerating appliances with a direct sales function

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 315 of 5 December 2019
)


On page 174, in Annex IV, in Table 4, Section (a) Supermarket cabinets, is replaced with the following:

















‘(a)




Supermarket cabinets










Category




Temperature class




Highest temperature of warmest M-package


(°C)




Lowest temperature of coldest M-package


(°C)




Highest minimum temperature of all M-package (°C)




Value for C





Vertical, combined supermarket refrigerator cabinets


M2


≤ +7


≥ –1


n.a.


1,00 




H1 and H2


≤ +10


≥ –1


n.a.


0,82 




M1


≤ +5


≥ –1


n.a.


1,15 




Horizontal supermarket refrigerator cabinets


M2


≤ +7


≥ –1


n.a.


1,00 




H1 and H2


≤ +10


≥ –1


n.a.


0,92 




M1


≤ +5


≥ –1


n.a.


1,08 




Vertical and combined supermarket freezer cabinets


L1


≤ –15


n.a.


≤ –18


1,00 




L2


≤ –12


n.a.


≤ –18


0,90 




L3


≤ –12


n.a.


≤ –15


0,90 




Horizontal supermarket freezer cabinets


L1


≤ –15


n.a.


≤ –18


1,00 




L2


≤ –12


n.a.


≤ –18


0,92 




L3


≤ –12


n.a.


≤ –15


0,92 ’
Case T-684/21: Action brought on 21 October 2021 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, applied research, building materials, building services, parking area, property development, real estate business, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2022002EN.01004302.xml










3.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/43






Action brought on 21 October 2021 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL)
(Case T-684/21)
(2022/C 2/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polimex — Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MOSTOSTAL — European Union trade mark No 9 329 848

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2021 in Case R 2508/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the European Union trade mark registered on 20 May 2011 under No 9 329 848 valid;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10516 – Bain Capital/ITP Aero) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 426/10
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, investment company, maintenance, merger control








C_2021426EN.01001401.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10516 – Bain Capital/ITP Aero)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 426/10)

1.   
On 13 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:






—


Bain Capital Investors L.L.C. (‘Bain Capital’, United States),










—


Industria de Turbo Propulsores, S.A.U (‘ITP’, Spain).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


For Bain Capital: private equity investment firm,










—


For ITP: manufacturing of aircraft engine components and provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul 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 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.10516 – Bain Capital/ITP Aero
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-866/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 52(1)(b) — Worker who has been employed in two Member States — Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension — Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State — Aggregation — Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, migrant worker, pension scheme, social security legislation, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation, work contract








C_2021513EN.01000901.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie
(Case C-866/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 52(1)(b) - Worker who has been employed in two Member States - Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension - Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State - Aggregation - Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid)
(2021/C 513/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the limit which non-contribution periods may not exceed in relation to contribution periods, as provided for by the national legislation, the competent institution of the Member State concerned must take into consideration, when calculating the theoretical amount of the benefit referred to in point (i) of that provision, all the periods of insurance, including those periods of insurance completed under the legislation of other Member States, whereas the calculation of the actual amount of the benefit referred to in point (ii) of that provision is made having regard solely to the periods of insurance completed under the legislation of the Member State concerned.


(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.