do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10491 – Allianz/Intelsat) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 8/04
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, investment company, merger control, parent company, telecommunications








C_2022008EN.01000501.xml










7.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10491 – Allianz/Intelsat)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 8/04)

1.   
On 21 December 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:






—


Allianz SE (‘Allianz’, GERMANY),










—


Intelsat Holdings S.A. (‘Intelsat’, USA)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Allianz: Allianz is the ultimate parent of the Allianz group, a global financial services company active predominantly in relation to life and non-life insurance and asset management,










—


for Intelsat: operation of satellite networks, ground networks and connectivity infrastructure and provision of diversified communications services to customers such as telecommunications operators, media companies, and internet service providers. Intelsat uses its satellites as relay stations in space for the transmission of voice, video, and data communications.






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.10491 — Allianz/Intelsat
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-18/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — Ökorenta Neue Energien Ökostabil IV geschlossene Investment GmbH & Co. KG v WealthCap Photovoltaik 1 GmbH Co. KG, WealthCap PEIA Komplementär GmbH, WealthCap Investorenbetreuung GmbH
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company member, data protection, disclosure of information, limited partnership, personal data








C_2022198EN.01001901.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — Ökorenta Neue Energien Ökostabil IV geschlossene Investment GmbH & Co. KG v WealthCap Photovoltaik 1 GmbH Co. KG, WealthCap PEIA Komplementär GmbH, WealthCap Investorenbetreuung GmbH
(Case C-18/22)
(2022/C 198/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ökorenta Neue Energien Ökostabil IV geschlossene Investment GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: WealthCap Photovoltaik 1 GmbH Co. KG, WealthCap PEIA Komplementär GmbH, WealthCap Investorenbetreuung GmbH

Questions referred







1.








a.


Is Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a partnership comprised of many members of the public, a limited partner with negligible liability has a ‘legitimate interest’ in obtaining information relating to all partners with shares held indirectly through a trustee, together with their contact details and the number of their shares in such a partnership, and a contractual obligation to that effect must be inferred from the partnership agreement?










b.


Or is a legitimate interest restricted under such circumstances to obtaining from the partnership information on limited partners with shares held indirectly and, rather than bearing negligible liability, hold shares above a minimum threshold that may, at least potentially, allow them to influence the future of the partnership?














2.








a.


Does the intention to make contact for the purpose of becoming better acquainted, exchanging views or negotiating the purchase of shares in the partnership suffice in order not to exceed the limits to prevent abuse of rights inherent in such an unrestricted right (1a) or to make an exception to the restriction applicable to a restricted right to information (1b)?










b.


Or is an interest in information potentially relevant only where its disclosure is requested with the express intention of contacting other partners in order to invite them to coordinate on specifically designated matters on which a consensus is needed for the purpose of partners’ resolutions?










(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 January 2022 2022/C 7/01
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022007EN.01000101.xml










7.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 January 2022
(2022/C 7/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1315 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83593 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3265 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0395 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0350 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,528 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,84 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5614 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9435 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,5504 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5778 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4451 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8272 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6752 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5388 




KRW


South Korean won


1 362,06 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7932 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2187 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5197 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 291,88 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7670 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,943 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,5088 




THB


Thai baht


37,962 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4420 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2549 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2475 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-11/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, insurance, medical data, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, trade-mark law, veterinary medicine, wholesale trade








C_2022109EN.01002701.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/27






Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)
(Case T-11/22)
(2022/C 109/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Medivet Group Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and M. Tillwich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MEDIVET — Application for registration No 18 132 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 1066/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Appointment of the standing high-level independent Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council 2022/C 8/01
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: appointment of members, committee (EU), fight against crime, financial control, fraud against the EU, president of an institution, vice-president of an institution








C_2022008EN.01000101.xml










7.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/1






Appointment of the standing high-level independent Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(2022/C 8/01)
The Commission has appointed Ms María Isabel ROFES i PUJOL and Mr IGORS LUDBORŽS as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively of the Panel referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) for a non-renewable mandate of five years, following a call for expressions of interest. Ms María Isabel ROFES i PUJOL and Mr Igors LUDBORŽS are designated as special advisers to Commissioner HAHN. Their term of office begins at 17 November 2021 (PV(2021) 2397 final).


(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 21).
Case T-9/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022084EN.01005101.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/51






Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)
(Case T-9/22)
(2022/C 84/71)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Application No 18 115 249

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 771/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;
or










—


amend the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark ‘VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT’ applied for in respect of goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, there is no absolute ground for refusal, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of [Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark], based on the sign’s lack of any distinctive character or its descriptive character;










—


make an appropriate order as to costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10581 – SPIE / STRUKTON SERVICES) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 8/03
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, building, communications policy, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2022008EN.01000401.xml










7.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10581 – SPIE / STRUKTON SERVICES)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 8/03)

1.   
On 22 December 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:






—


SPIE Nederland B.V. (‘SPIE’, The Netherlands),










—


Strukton Services B.V. (‘Strukton Services’, The Netherlands), belonging to Strukton Groep N.V.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for SPIE: the provision of multi-technical services in the areas of energy and communications,










—


for Strukton Services: the management and maintenance of buildings in the Netherlands.






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.10581 – SPIE / STRUKTON SERVICES
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-17/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio geschlossene Investment UG & Co. KG v Müller Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company member, data protection, disclosure of information, limited partnership, personal data








C_2022198EN.01001802.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2022 — HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio geschlossene Investment UG & Co. KG v Müller Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-17/22)
(2022/C 198/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HTB Neunte Immobilien Portfolio geschlossene Investment UG & Co. KG

Defendant: Müller Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred







1.








a.


Is Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a partnership comprised of many members of the public, a limited partner with negligible liability has a ‘legitimate interest’ in obtaining information relating to all partners with shares held indirectly through a trustee, together with their contact details and the number of their shares in such a partnership, and a contractual obligation to that effect must be inferred from the partnership agreement?










b.


Or is a legitimate interest restricted under such circumstances to obtaining from the partnership information on limited partners with shares held indirectly and, rather than bearing negligible liability, hold shares above a minimum threshold that may, at least potentially, allow them to influence the future of the partnership?














2.








a.


Does the intention to make contact for the purpose of becoming better acquainted, exchanging views or negotiating the purchase of shares in the partnership suffice in order not to exceed the limits to prevent abuse of rights inherent in such an unrestricted right (1a) or to make an exception to the restriction applicable to a restricted right to information (1b)?










.b.


Or is an interest in information potentially relevant only where its disclosure is requested with the express intention of contacting other partners in order to invite them to coordinate on specifically designated matters on which a consensus is needed for the purpose of partners’ resolutions?










(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10471 – SUEZ / SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 16/01
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, hazardous waste, merger control, provision of services, software, urbanisation, waste management, wastewater, water treatment








C_2022016EN.01000101.xml










13.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10471 – SUEZ / SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 16/01)
On 7 January 2022, 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 32022M10471. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-12/22: Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022109EN.01002702.xml










7.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/27






Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)
(Case T-12/22)
(2022/C 109/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hasco TM sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark NATURCAPS — European Union trade mark No 16 289 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 617/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


accept the application and declare it well founded;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003);










—


Infringement of article 60(1) in conjunction with article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-21/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — OP
Date: 2022-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, bilateral agreement, foreign national, inheritance, law of succession, third country








C_2022198EN.01002001.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — OP
(Case C-21/22)
(2022/C 198/29)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OP

Other party to the proceedings: Notariusz Justyna Gawlica

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 22 [of Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession? (1)











2.


Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.