do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10820 - BERKSHIRE / ALLEGHANY) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 345/06
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, insurance, merger control, rail transport, retail trade








C_2022345EN.01000801.xml










8.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10820 - BERKSHIRE / ALLEGHANY)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 345/06)

1.   
On 1 September 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:






—


Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (‘Berkshire Hathaway’, USA)










—


Alleghany Corporation (‘Alleghany’, USA)




Berkshire Hathaway will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Alleghany.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Berkshire Hathaway is a company engaged in insurance and reinsurance activities, freight rail transportation and utility and energy generation and distribution. Berkshire Hathaway also owns and operates numerous other businesses engaged in a variety of manufacturing, services, and retailing activities.










—


Alleghany is an asset management company, also active in property and casualty reinsurance and insurance.






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.10820 - BERKSHIRE / ALLEGHANY
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-368/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Place where the customs debt is incurred — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 30 — Article 60 — Article 71(1) — Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable — Place where the tax liability is incurred — Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation — Determination of the place of importation of goods — Means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the European Union in infringement of customs legislation)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, basis of tax assessment, customs debt, customs union, import (EU), third country, vehicle








C_2022408EN.01002002.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/20






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg
(Case C-368/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Place where the customs debt is incurred - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 30 - Article 60 - Article 71(1) - Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable - Place where the tax liability is incurred - Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation - Determination of the place of importation of goods - Means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the European Union in infringement of customs legislation)
(2022/C 408/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: R.T.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 30 and 60 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/2057 of 20 December 2018
         
must be interpreted as meaning that:
for value added tax purposes, the place of importation of a vehicle registered in a third country and imported into the European Union in breach of customs legislation is situated in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and actually uses the vehicle.


(1)  
            OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 September 2022 2022/C 345/02
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022345EN.01000201.xml










8.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2022
(2022/C 345/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9885 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86510 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6888 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9750 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9483 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,631 




HUF


Hungarian forint


401,83 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7290 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8585 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0262 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4748 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3037 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,7596 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6459 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3931 




KRW


South Korean won


1 374,44 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2582 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8968 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5143 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 779,47 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4497 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,532 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,322 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,1881 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9225 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0280 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-556/22: Action brought on 8 September 2022 — House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bulb vegetable, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2022424EN.01004001.xml










7.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/40






Action brought on 8 September 2022 — House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)
(Case T-556/22)
(2022/C 424/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: House Foods Group, Inc. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and T. Wuttke, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO


Community Plant Variety at issue: SK20 — Application for a Community plant variety right No 2017/3314

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 1 July 2022 in Case A 018/2021

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council.
Case C-56/22: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — PL v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to set out the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, foreign national, illegal migration, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum








C_2023015EN.01002001.xml










16.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/20






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — PL v État belge
(Case C-56/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to set out the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2023/C 15/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PL

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium), made by decision of 14 January 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.