Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9431 — KKR/Grupo Gallardo Balboa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 315/01)

On 16 August 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 32019M9431. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 315/02)

On 9 September 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 32019M9514. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 September 2019

(2019/C 315/03)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1053
JPY	Japanese yen	119,54
DKK	Danish krone	7,4673
GBP	Pound sterling	0,88720
SEK	Swedish krona	10,7298
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0999
ISK	Iceland króna	136,80
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,8905
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,892
HUF	Hungarian forint	332,89
PLN	Polish zloty	4,3370
RON	Romanian leu	4,7366
TRY	Turkish lira	6,2663
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6149
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4645
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,6533
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7428
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5182
KRW	South Korean won	1 316,22
ZAR	South African rand	16,1576
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,8349
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,3980
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 541,22
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,6246
PHP	Philippine peso	57,643
RUB	Russian rouble	70,9405
THB	Thai baht	33,750
BRL	Brazilian real	4,5045
MXN	Mexican peso	21,3629
INR	Indian rupee	78,7070

---

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-2/18

C

v

Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein

(Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 24 — Pensioner residing outside the competent State — Benefits in kind in the place of residence — Reimbursement procedure)

(2019/C 315/04)

In Case E-2/18, C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Liechtenstein (Fürstliches Landgericht) concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

When a pensioner is not entitled to benefits in kind in the EEA State of residence, due to the fact that the benefits fall outside the scope of its social security system, the pensioner is entitled, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, to receive benefits in kind at the expense of the competent institution in the EEA State under whose legislation the pension is paid.

2.

The pensioner has a right to submit claims for reimbursement directly to the competent institution in the EEA State under whose legislation the pension is paid, in particular, but not only, if he has been refused reimbursement by the State of residence. In accordance with Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Article 76(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, if the competent institution does not provide the pensioner with information as to the procedure to be followed, that must not adversely affect the pensioner’s rights vis-à-vis the institution.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-3/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) 2015/1051)

(2019/C 315/05)

In Case E-3/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes) as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-4/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 524/2013)

(2019/C 315/06)

In Case E-4/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-5/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/11/EU)

(2019/C 315/07)

In Case E-5/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-6/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/52/EU)

(2019/C 315/08)

In Case E-6/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9551 — Toyota/Panasonic/Prime Life Technologies JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 315/09)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.