Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9278 — LVMH/Belmond)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 140/01)

On 9 April 2019, 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 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 32019M9278. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2019/C 140/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Amjad Abbas (no. 7), Brigadier General Mohammed Bilal (no. 14), Major General Tawfiq Younes (no. 31), Mr. Nizar al-Asaad (no. 36), Mr. Ali Douba (no. 41), Major General Ali Barakat (no. 78), Major General Talal Makhluf (no. 79), Mr. Mohamed Heikmat (no. 104), Brigadier General Burhan Qadour (no. 128), Major General Hussam Luqa (no. 139), Mr. Ahmed al-Jarroucheh (no. 144.), Dr. Hazwan Al Wez (no. 160), Mr. Bishr Riyad Yazigi (no. 188), Mr. Hilal Hilal (no. 211), Mr. Ahmad Sheik Abdul-Qader (no. 214), Dr Ghassan Omar Khalaf (no. 215), Mr. Khayr al-Din al-Sayyed (no. 216), Mr. Atef Naddaf (no. 217), Mr. Hussein Makhlouf (no. 218), Mr. Ali Ghanem (no. 220), Mr. Mohammed al-Ahmed (no. 222), Mr. Ali Hamoud (no. 223), Mr. Mohammed Zuhair Kharboutli (no. 224), Mr. Maamoun Hamdan (no 225), Mr. Nabil al-Hasan (no. 226), Mr Abdullah al-Gharbi (no. 228), Mr. Abdullah Abdullah (no. 229), Ms. Salwa Abdullah (no. 230), Mr. Rafe'a Abu Sa'ad (no. 231), Ms. Wafiqa Hosni (no. 232), Ms. Rima Al-Qadiri (no. 233), Mr. Duraid Durgham (no. 234), Mr. Ali Wanus (no. 243), Mr. Mohamed Mazen Ali Yousef (no. 258), Major General Mohammad Khaled al-Rahmoun (no. 275), Mr. Mohammad Rami Radwan Martini (no. 276), Mr. Imad Muwaffaq al-Azab (no. 277), Mr. Bassam Bashir Ibrahim (no. 278), Mr. Suhail Mohammad Abdullatif (no. 279), Mr. Iyad Mohammad al-Khatib (no. 280) and Mr. Mohammad Maen Zein-al-Abidin Jazba (no. 281) persons appearing in the Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 24 April 2019, to the following address:

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The persons concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to include and maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received. In this respect, the attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list. In order for requests to be considered at the next review, they should be submitted by 7 May 2019.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 April 2019

(2019/C 140/03)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1313
JPY	Japanese yen	126,66
DKK	Danish krone	7,4639
GBP	Pound sterling	0,86305
SEK	Swedish krona	10,4608
CHF	Swiss franc	1,1345
ISK	Iceland króna	135,60
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,6018
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,625
HUF	Hungarian forint	320,25
PLN	Polish zloty	4,2742
RON	Romanian leu	4,7618
TRY	Turkish lira	6,5637
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5761
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5060
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,8685
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6729
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5299
KRW	South Korean won	1 281,37
ZAR	South African rand	15,8192
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,5867
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,4360
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 906,08
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,6573
PHP	Philippine peso	58,476
RUB	Russian rouble	72,7011
THB	Thai baht	35,936
BRL	Brazilian real	4,3985
MXN	Mexican peso	21,2497
INR	Indian rupee	78,5405

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on two legislative proposals relating to combating VAT fraud

(the full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2019/C 140/04)

Summary

With this Opinion, issued pursuant to Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), the EDPS puts forward recommendations aiming at minimising the impact of two Commission’s proposals on the fight against VAT fraud in the context of ‘e-commerce’ on the fundamental right to privacy and to the protection of personal data, thus ensuring compliance with the applicable data protection legal framework.

In doing so, the EDPS stresses the need to strictly limit the processing operations envisaged by the proposals to the purpose of fighting tax fraud, and to limit the collection and use of personal data to what is necessary and proportionate for this purpose. In particular, we point out to that, in the context of these proposals, the data undergoing processing should not relate to the consumers (the payers) but only to the online businesses (payees). This would limit the risk of the information being used for other purposes, such as controlling purchase habits of the consumers. We appreciate the fact that the Commission followed this approach and we strongly recommend that this approach is maintained in the negotiations with the co-legislators leading to the final approval of the proposals.

Moreover, the EDPS wishes to stress that, pursuant to Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, it expects to be consulted on the implementing act that will in the future define the standard format for the transmission of information from the payment service providers to the national tax administration, before its adoption by the Commission.

Since the proposals would set up, in addition to the national databases, a central electronic database (CESOP) to be developed, maintained, hosted and managed by the Commission, the EDPS recalls his guidance on IT governance and management. The EDPS will follow up on the setting up of this information system as competent Supervisory Authority under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Finally, this Opinion provides guidance on the conditions and limits for lawful and appropriate restrictions of data subject’s rights in compliance with the GDPR and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

I.   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1.   Context of the Proposals

1.

On 10 September 2018, the EDPS has been informally consulted by the European Commission on the following draft proposals: Draft Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the introduction of certain requirements on payment service providers; Draft Proposal for a Council implementing Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards certain value added tax obligations for certain taxable persons; Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards measures to strengthen administrative cooperation in order to combat VAT fraud in the field of ‘e-commerce’. The EDPS issued informal comments on 18 September 2018. In this regard, the EDPS confirms that he welcomes the possibility to exchange views with the Commission early in the policy-making process with a view to minimising the impacts of the proposals on the rights to privacy and to data protection (2).

2.

On 12 December 2018, the European Commission published a Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards introducing certain requirements for payment service providers (hereinafter, ‘the proposed Council Directive’) (3) and a Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards measures to strengthen administrative cooperation in order to combat VAT fraud (hereinafter, ‘the proposed Council Regulation’) (4), hereinafter, collectively referred to as the ‘Proposals’.

3.

On 14 January 2019, the Commission consulted the EDPS pursuant to Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

4.

The EDPS also points out to the fact that the proposed Regulation and Directive would, as highlighted further in this Opinion, establish data processing operations for which the Commission would be the controller pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. We therefore recall that the EDPS is the competent supervisory authority as regards such processing.

1.2.   Content of the Proposals

5.

The EDPS notes that the Proposals, which are accompanied by an Impact Assessment (5), aim to address the problem of VAT fraud related to ‘e-commerce’ by enhancing the cooperation between tax authorities and the payment service providers (hereinafter ‘PSPs’).

6.

In particular, according to the proposed Council Directive, Member States should enact legislation that ensures that PSPs keep records of cross-border payment transactions in order to enable tax authorities to detect VAT fraud. The proposed Council Regulation complements the set of anti-fraud measures: (a) requiring Member States’ competent authorities to collect, exchange and analyse the information relating to payment transactions detailed in the Council Directive Proposal, and (b) setting up a central electronic information system (‘CESOP’) where Member States transmit the information stored at national level. The CESOP would then be accessible by Eurofisc liaison officials for the analysis of the information stored therein with the purpose of investigating tax fraud.

7.

The EDPS acknowledges the objectives of the proposals and in particular the need to regulate on this subject matter establishing anti-fraud measures addressing e-commerce operations. The present Opinion seeks to provide a pragmatic advice on how to minimise the impact of the processing of personal data triggered by the proposals, ensuring compliance with the applicable data protection law.

IV.   CONCLUSIONS

17.

In light of the above, the EDPS makes the following recommendations: — Recital 11 of the proposed Council Directive and Recital 17 of the proposed Council Regulation on the applicable data protection law should be amended as indicated under Section 2.1 of this Opinion; — including the purpose specification, as laid down under Recital 11 of the Council Directive and Recital 17 of the Council Regulation, in the operative part of the legal act of both the Council Directive and the Council Regulation; — having regard to the central database ‘CESOP’, the Commission must ensure compliance with the provisions on security of processing under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in particular following the EDPS ‘Guidelines on the protection of personal data in IT governance and management of EU institutions’; — regarding possible restrictions of data subjects’ rights: i. amending the wording of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1541, in accordance with Article 23 of the GDPR, to either leave the possibility to enact restrictions to Member States (replacing the word ‘shall’ with ‘may restrict’); or, to the extent restrictions are necessary, provide for them directly in the Regulation (EU) No 904/2010; ii. inserting under Article 24e of the Council Regulation, among the elements to be further defined by the Commission in a future implementing act, the possible restrictions of data subjects’ rights in accordance with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and the guidance issued by the EDPS on this matter (‘Guidance on Article 25 of the new Regulation and internal rules’). — the Commission must, in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, consult the EDPS on the implementing act on the electronic standard format for the transmission of information by the PSP to the competent tax authority of the Member State where the PSP is established before its adoption by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  See Recital 60 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725: ‘In order to ensure consistency of data protection rules throughout the Union, when preparing proposals or recommendations, the Commission should endeavour to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor. A consultation by the Commission should be obligatory following the adoption of legislative acts or during the preparation of delegated acts and implementing acts as defined in Article 289, 290 and 291 TFEU and following the adoption of recommendations and proposals relating to agreements with third countries and international organisations as provided for in Article 218 TFEU which have an impact on the right to protection of personal data. In such cases, the Commission should be obliged to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor, except where the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 provides for mandatory consultation of the European Data Protection Board, for example on adequacy decisions or delegated acts on standardised icons and requirements for certification mechanisms.’

(3)  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards introducing certain requirements for payment service providers, COM(2018) 812 final, proc. 2018/0412 (CNS).

(4)  Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards measures to strengthen administrative cooperation in order to combat VAT fraud, COM(2018) 813 final, proc. 2018/0413 (CNS).

(5)  Commission staff working document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Proposals for a Council Directive, a Council Implementing Regulation and a Council Regulation on Mandatory transmission and exchange of VAT-related payment data.

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2019/C 140/05)

The publication of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (2), is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a monthly update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

SPAIN

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 186, 31.5.2018.

The Order of the Ministry of the Presidency (PRE/1282/2007) of 10 May on the financial means aliens are required to have in order to enter Spain specifies the amount that aliens have to prove is available to them in order to be able to enter Spain.

a)

For the costs of their stay in Spain, the amount they have available to them must represent, in euro, 10 % of the gross national minimum wage (90 EUR) or its legal equivalent in foreign currency multiplied by the number of days they intend to stay in Spain and by the number of dependent persons travelling with them. The minimum amount at their disposal must represent 90 % of the gross national minimum wage (810 EUR) or its legal equivalent in foreign currency per person, regardless of the intended duration of the stay.

b)	For their return to the state of provenance or for transit via third states, aliens must be able to produce a personal, untransferable and fixed-date ticket or tickets for the planned means of transport.

Aliens must prove that they have the above means of subsistence either by producing them if they are in cash, or by producing certified cheques, traveller’s cheques, receipts or credit cards, which must be accompanied by a recent bank statement (bank letters or internet bank statements are not acceptable) or by other evidence clearly showing the amount of credit available on the card or bank account.

List of previous publications

OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19.

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22.

OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18.

OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38.

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19.

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8.

OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7.

OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5.

OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6.

OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8.

OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 16.

OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 13.

OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 44.

OJ C 199, 7.7.2012, p. 8.

OJ C 298, 4.10.2012, p. 3.

OJ C 56, 26.2.2013, p. 13.

OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 3.

OJ C 269, 18.9.2013, p. 2.

OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 1.

OJ C 152, 20.5.2014, p. 25.

OJ C 224, 15.7.2014, p. 31.

OJ C 434, 4.12.2014, p. 3.

OJ C 447, 13.12.2014, p. 32.

OJ C 38, 4.2.2015, p. 20.

OJ C 96, 11.3.2016, p. 7.

OJ C 146, 26.4.2016, p. 12.

OJ C 248, 8.7.2016, p. 12.

OJ C 111, 8.4.2017, p. 11.

OJ C 21, 20.1.2018, p. 3.

OJ C 93, 12.3.2018, p. 4.

OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 8.

OJ C 186, 31.5.2018, p. 10.

OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 6.

OJ C 366, 10.10.2018, p. 12.

OJ C 459, 20.12.2018, p. 38.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

(2)  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1.

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force on imports into the Union of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of a company subject to the minimum import price for cooperating non-sampled companies

(2019/C 140/06)

Imports of Melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 (1).

One company located in the People’s Republic of China, TARIC (2) additional code A987, whose exports to the Union of melamine are subject to the minimum import price of EUR/tonne 1 153 informed the Commission that it had changed its name as set out below.

That company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the minimum import price applied to it under its previous name.

The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) 2017/1171.

Therefore, the references in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 to:

Holitech Technology Co. Ltd

1 153

—

A987

should be read as:

Shandong Holitech Chemical Industry Co., Ltd

1 153

—

A987

The TARIC additional code A987 previously attributed to Holitech Technology Co. Ltd shall apply to Shandong Holitech Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 of 30 June 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 170, 1.7.2017, p. 62).

(2)  The Integrated Tariff of the European Union.

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2019/C 140/07)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.

Product	Country(ies) of origin or exportation	Measures	Reference	Date of expiry (3)
Sulphanilic acid	The People’s Republic of China	Anti-dumping duty	Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1346/2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 363, 18.12.2014, p. 82)	19.12.2019

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9351 — DIF/Green Investment Group/Covanta/Dublin Waste-to-energy facility)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 140/08)

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9279 — EPH/Uniper France)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 140/09)

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9335 — Triton/Luxinva/IFCO Systems)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 140/10)

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9358 — Bregal Unternehmerkapital/MEDIA Central)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 140/11)

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.