do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11106 – STELLANTIS / MICHELIN / FORVIA / SYMBIO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 328/01
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fuel cell, merger control, motor vehicle industry, pneumatic tyre








C_2023328EN.01000101.xml










18.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/1







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11106 – STELLANTIS / MICHELIN / FORVIA / SYMBIO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 328/01)

On 17 July 2023, 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11106. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11176 – LONE STAR / CENTROMOTION) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 251/03
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment, investment company, merger control, occupational safety, productivity, real property, subsidiary, technology








C_2023251EN.01000301.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11176 – LONE STAR / CENTROMOTION)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 251/03)

1.   
On 6 July 2023, 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:






—


LSF12 Badger Bidco, LLC, (‘LSAF12’, USA) controlled by Lone Star Funds (‘Lone Star’, USA),










—


BRWS Parent LLC (‘BRWS’, USA), the holding company sitting on top of the CentroMotion group,




Lone Star will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over BRWS.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


LSAF12 is a wholly owned subsidiary of affiliates of Lone Star Funds, a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit, and other financial assets.










—


BRWS is the holding company of the CentroMotion group which designs and manufactures highly engineered systems and solutions that enhance the safety, reliability and productivity of its customers’ equipment for the industrial and transportation end.






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.11176 – LONE STAR / CENTROMOTION
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
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 T-420/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Al-Assad v Council
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, family, international sanctions, natural person








C_202300052EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/52


9.10.2023





Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Al-Assad v Council
(Case T-420/23)
(C/2023/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mudar Al-Assad (Damas, Syria) (represented by: B. Grundler, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2023/844 of 24 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns him;










—


annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 and its annexes, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2023/844, in so far as it concerns him;










—


order the Council, in so far as it is to be unsuccessful, to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that, by merely stating that ‘Mudar … al-Assad is Bashar al-Assad’s cousin; he is therefore a member of the Assad family’, the Council did not satisfy the requirement to state reasons for its acts, as interpreted by the Courts of the European Union;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Council and that its decision was not well founded. The applicant maintains that the Council wrongly presumed from his family ties that he was profiting from the Syrian regime and was associated with it, whereas an entry in the Annex at issue would have required the Council to have evidence relating to actual conduct establishing his personal responsibility.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/52/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 July 2023 2023/C 251/02
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023251EN.01000201.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 July 2023
(2023/C 251/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1221 




JPY


Japanese yen


155,51 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4484 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85590 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,4930 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9649 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,2105 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,777 




HUF


Hungarian forint


374,55 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4490 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9439 




TRY


Turkish lira


29,3872 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6350 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4728 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7694 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7589 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4820 




KRW


South Korean won


1 423,03 




ZAR


South African rand


20,2032 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0076 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 797,87 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0786 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,135 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,864 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3847 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,9497 




INR


Indian rupee


92,1985 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-408/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, discretionary power, financing method, financing plan, legal basis, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2023314EN.01002501.xml










4.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/25






Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB
(Case T-408/23)
(2023/C 314/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.




The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.
Case T-418/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — YK v EIB
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, fundamental rights, indemnification, legality, operation of the Institutions








C_202300051EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/51


9.10.2023





Action brought on 17 July 2023 — YK v EIB
(Case T-418/23)
(C/2023/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: YK (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the final decision dated 5 April 2023 of the EIB President, endorsing the conclusions of the Final Report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel in case no 2021/01-H (hereinafter, the ‘first disputed decision’);










—


annul the final report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel in case no 2021/01-H, dated 24 May 2022 (hereinafter, the ‘second disputed decision’ and together with the first disputed decision, the ‘disputed decisions’), and;










—


compensate for non-material damages and distress that the applicant suffered as a result of multiple irregularities and continuous infringements of applicant’s fundamental rights directly relating to the disputed decisions and the processes initiated and/or followed by and/or agreed with the European Investment Bank relating to such disputed decisions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging illegality of the disputed decisions following the defendant’s wrongful actions and/or omissions relating to the improper initiation, continuation and conduct of the dignity at work procedure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging illegality of the disputed decisions following the defendant’s actions and/or omissions in assessing the substance of allegations made against the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the disputed decisions and related violations of his fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/51/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-55/23, Jurtukała: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie — Poland) — PA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 10(1)(a) — Subsidiary jurisdiction — Article 267 TFEU — Obligation to comply with the directions of a higher court)
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law (EU), higher court, inheritance, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, law of succession








C_2023321EN.01001801.xml










11.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/18






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie — Poland) — PA
(Case C-55/23, (1) Jurtukała (2))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 10(1)(a) - Subsidiary jurisdiction - Article 267 TFEU - Obligation to comply with the directions of a higher court)
(2023/C 321/21)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin — Prawobrzeże i Zachód w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PA

Other party: MO

Operative part of the order

Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction laid down by that provision applies only where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death was located in a Member State not bound by that regulation or in a third State.
EU law, in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding a national court, ruling following the setting aside by a higher court of a decision which it delivered, from being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by the legal rulings of that higher court, where those rulings are inconsistent with EU law, as interpreted by the Court.


(1)  Date lodged: 3.2.2023.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.