do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10499 – STATE STREET / BBH (INVESTOR SERVICES BUSINESS)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 54/04
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2022054EN.01000601.xml










1.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10499 – STATE STREET / BBH (INVESTOR SERVICES BUSINESS))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 54/04)

1.   
On 24 January 2022, 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:






—


State Street Corporation (‘State Street’, US)










—


Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.’s (‘BBH’, US) investor services business.




State Street will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of BBH’s investor services business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets and shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


State Street is a provider of various financial services including domestic and global securities services,










—


BBH is active in investor services, private banking and investment management. The investor services division provides investment servicing, custody and safekeeping, agency, securities lending and borrowing, investment operations and technology solutions to its clients, which are primarily financial institutions and asset managers.






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.10499 – STATE STREET / BBH (INVESTOR SERVICES BUSINESS)
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’).
Case C-65/22 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2022 by Industria de Diseño Textil SA (Inditex) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-467/20, Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering, foodstuff, fresh vegetable, fruit juice, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022244EN.01001101.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/11






Appeal brought on 1 February 2022 by Industria de Diseño Textil SA (Inditex) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-467/20, Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)
(Case C-65/22 P)
(2022/C 244/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Industria de Diseño Textil SA (Inditex) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and S. Sáenz de Ormijana Rico, abogadas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ffauf Italia SpA
By order of 6 May 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Industria de Diseño Textil SA (Inditex) should bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10604 — OXFORD PROPERTIES / PINEBRIDGE BENSON ELLIOT / SIGMA) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 54/05
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2022054EN.01000801.xml










1.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10604 — OXFORD PROPERTIES / PINEBRIDGE BENSON ELLIOT / SIGMA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 54/05)

1.   
On 21 January 2022, 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:






—


Oxford Six Limited, part of the Oxford Properties Group (‘Oxford Properties’, Canada),










—


PineBridge Benson Elliot LLP (‘PBBE’, United Kingdom),










—


Sigma Capital Group Limited (‘Sigma’, United Kingdom).




Oxford Properties and PBBE acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Sigma.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Oxford Properties: the ownership, development and management of real estate assets. Oxford Properties is the real estate arm of OMERS Administration Corporation (‘OMERS’), the administrator of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Primary Pension Plan and trustee of the pension funds.










—


for PBBE: a fund manager. PBBE is solely controlled by PineBridge Investments, L.P., (‘PineBridge’), a private, asset manager.










—


for Sigma: a UK-based residential development and urban regeneration specialist.






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.10604 — OXFORD PROPERTIES / PINEBRIDGE BENSON ELLIOT / SIGMA
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.
Decision of the Court of Justice of 1 February 2022 on official holidays and judicial vacations
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: holiday, operation of the Institutions, public holiday




C_2022138EN.01000201.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/2






DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
of 1 February 2022
on official holidays and judicial vacations
(2022/C 138/02)
THE COURT
Having regards to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,
Whereas it is necessary, in accordance with that provision, to establish the list of official holidays and to set the dates of the judicial vacations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:


Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:






—


New Year’s Day,










—


Easter Monday,










—


1 May,










—


9 May,










—


Ascension,










—


Whit Monday,










—


23 June,










—


15 August,










—


1 November,










—


25 December,










—


26 December.







Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2022 to 31 October 2023, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:






—


Christmas 2022: from Monday 19 December 2022 to Sunday 8 January 2023 inclusive,










—


Easter 2023: from Monday 3 April 2023 to Sunday 16 April 2023 inclusive,










—


Summer 2023: from Sunday 16 July 2023 to Thursday 31 August 2023 inclusive.







Article 3

This decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Luxembourg, 1 February 2022.


Registrar

A. CALOT ESCOBAR



President

K. LENAERTS
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 31 January 2022 2022/C 53/01
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022053EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

31 January 2022
(2022/C 53/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1156 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4419 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83153 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4890 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0404 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0085 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,372 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,19 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5892 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9475 




TRY


Turkish lira


14,9310 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5820 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4233 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6994 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6983 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5110 




KRW


South Korean won


1 349,08 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3734 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0963 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5293 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 036,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6693 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,985 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,7251 




THB


Thai baht


37,144 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0030 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1856 




INR


Indian rupee


83,3655 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-67/22: Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Guma Holdings v EUIPO — X-Trade Brokers Dom Maklerski (XTRADE)
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, electronic publishing, investment company, marketing, registered trade mark, securities, software, trade-mark law








C_2022138EN.01002802.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/28






Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Guma Holdings v EUIPO — X-Trade Brokers Dom Maklerski (XTRADE)
(Case T-67/22)
(2022/C 138/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Guma Holdings LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Oleksyn and M. Stępkowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Trade Brokers Dom Maklerski S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XTRADE in the colours dark grey, light grey, blue, shades of blue — European Union trade mark No 13 061 387

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 981/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1);










—


Infringement of Articles 8(4) and 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 16(1)(b) and 7(2)(d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.






(1)  JO 2012 C 326, p. 391.
Case C-61/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — RL v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biometrics, data protection, identity document, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2022213EN.01002201.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — RL v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden
(Case C-61/22)
(2022/C 213/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RL

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden

Questions referred

Does the obligation to take fingerprints and store them in identity cards in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 (1) infringe higher-ranking EU law, in particular






(a)


Article 77(3) TFEU,










(b)


Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,










(c)


Article 35(10) of the General Data Protection Regulation, (2)





and is it therefore invalid on one of those grounds?


(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement (OJ 2019 L 188, p. 67).

(2)  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).
Case C-60/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, judicial proceedings, personal data








C_2022198EN.01002401.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — UZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-60/22)
(2022/C 198/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UZ

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Does the failure of a controller to discharge or fully to discharge its obligation of accountability under Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), (1) for example due to the lack of a record — or a complete record — of processing activities in accordance with Article 30 of the GDPR or the lack of an arrangement for a joint procedure in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR, result in the data processing in question being unlawful within the meaning of Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR and Article 18(1)(b) of the GDPR, so that the data subject has a right to erasure or restriction?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the existence of a right to erasure or restriction have the consequence that the data processed must not be taken into account in judicial proceedings? Is that the case in any event where the data subject objects to the use of the data in the judicial proceedings?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does an infringement by a controller of Article 5, 30 or 26 of the GDPR have the consequence that, with regard to the question as to the use of the processed data in judicial proceedings, a national court may take the data into account only if the data subject expressly consents to that use?






(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, corrigendum OJ 2018 L 127, p. 2).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10576 – BAIN CAPITAL / HELLMAN & FRIEDMAN / ATHENAHEALTH GROUP) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 68/01
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, investment company, medical data, merger control, mobile application, provision of services








C_2022068EN.01000101.xml










9.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10576 – BAIN CAPITAL / HELLMAN & FRIEDMAN / ATHENAHEALTH GROUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 68/01)
On 1 February 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 32022M10576. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-235/20 P: Order of the President of the Second of the Court of 1 February 2022 — ViaSat, Inc. v European Commission, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, invitation to tender, satellite communications, tendering, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2022222EN.01002403.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/24






Order of the President of the Second of the Court of 1 February 2022 — ViaSat, Inc. v European Commission, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd
(Case C-235/20 P) (1)

(2022/C 222/36)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the amendment to Annex 14-B of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Japan, United Kingdom, cooperation agreement (EU), designation of origin, economic cooperation, labelling, product designation, revision of an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








L_2022022EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 22/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the amendment to Annex 14-B of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership

By means of its Decision No 1/2022, the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership (1), signed in Tokyo on 17 July 2018, decided to amend Annex 14-B of the Agreement. The amendment entered into force on 1 February 2022.


(1)  
            OJ L 330, 27.12.2018, p. 3.
Case C-62/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH
Date: 2022-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, legal domicile, package travel, private international law, territorial jurisdiction, traveller








C_2022165EN.01002802.xml










19.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-62/22)
(2022/C 165/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IA

Defendant: DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his or her contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad, with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his or her place of domicile as a supplement to national rules?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.