do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-688/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, termination of a contract








C_2019432EN.01005901.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/59






Action brought on 8 October 2019 – VeriGraft v EASME
(Case T-688/19)
(2019/C 432/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find and declare that EASME’s termination of the Grant Agreement (Grant Agreement No 778620 P-TEV) is invalid; and










—


order EASME to pay costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid:






—


EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’.










—


As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the termination of the Grant Agreement breaches the principle of proportionality:






—


A termination of the Grant Agreement also breaches the principle of proportionality as it was not a suitable measure to achieve the legitimate objective pursued; it was not necessary to achieve the objective pursued; and as the termination imposed a burden on VERIGRAFT that is clearly excessive to the objective sought to be achieved.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9519 — Brookfield Asset Management/KKR & Co/X-Elio Energy) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 352/05
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, power plant, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2019352EN.01000501.xml










18.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9519 — Brookfield Asset Management/KKR & Co/X-Elio Energy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 352/05)
On 8 October 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 32019M9519. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-741/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 8 October 2019 — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy, a company the successor in law to the company Energoalians
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Energy Charter, claim, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy law, investment, sale








C_2019413EN.01003402.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 8 October 2019 — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy, a company the successor in law to the company Energoalians
(Case C-741/19)
(2019/C 413/41)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Republic of Moldova

Respondent: Komstroy, a company the successor in law to the company Energoalians

Questions referred







—


Must Article 1.6 of the Energy Charter Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a claim which arose from a contract for the sale of electricity and which did not involve any contribution on the part of the investor in the host State can constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of that article?










—


Must Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition, by an investor of a Contracting Party, of a claim established by an economic operator which is not from one of the States that are Parties to that Treaty constitutes an investment?










—


Must Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a claim held by an investor, which arose from a contract for the sale of electricity supplied at the border of the host State, can constitute an investment made in the area of another Contracting Party, in the case where the investor does not carry out any economic activity in the territory of that latter Contracting Party?
Case T-689/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – ZU v EEAS
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, allowances and expenses, indemnification, principle of proportionality








C_2019423EN.01006202.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/62






Action brought on 8 October 2019 – ZU v EEAS
(Case T-689/19)
(2019/C 423/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s requests of 27 July 2018 (i) for reimbursement of mission costs and (ii) for assistance;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 70 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay 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, in relation to the rejection of the request for reimbursement of mission costs, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the principle of good administration, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, breach of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and its derivative provisions as in Annex VII to those Regulations and the Guide to Missions (2008), and irrelevance of the request for the provision of the boarding cards as a pre-condition for the reimbursement of applicant’s mission costs.










2.


Second plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for assistance, alleging error of assessment, breach of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1, 31(2), 41 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and misuse of powers.
Case T-687/19: Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq)
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, electrical equipment, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01010101.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/101






Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq)
(Case T-687/19)
(2019/C 399/120)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Equipson, SA (Silla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Marq – European Union trade mark No14 585699

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 1759/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety and maintain the registration in respect of the relevant goods;










—


order EUIPO and any party involved in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in combination with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9544 — Brookfield/Johnson Controls Autobatterie) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 338/03
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity storage device, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2019338EN.01000601.xml










8.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9544 — Brookfield/Johnson Controls Autobatterie)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 338/03)

1.   
On 30 September 2019, 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:






—


Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, USA),










—


Johnson Controls Autobatterie GmbH & Co.KGaA (‘JC Autobatterie’, Germany).




Brookfield acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of JC Autobatterie.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Brookfield: asset management with a focus on real estate, renewable power, infrastructure and private equity,










—


for JC Autobatterie: research, development, marketing, manufacturing, licensing and distribution of starter batteries for all kinds of vehicles and applications, including passenger vehicles, trucks, and other motive applications.






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 the 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.9544 — Brookfield/Johnson Controls Autobatterie
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.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 7 October 20192019/C 338/01
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019338EN.01000101.xml










8.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 October 2019
(2019/C 338/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0993 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,44 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4679 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89155 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8910 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0924 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0388 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,781 




HUF


Hungarian forint


333,64 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3317 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7475 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3100 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6316 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4633 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6237 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7452 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5175 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,20 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6332 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8582 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4235 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 579,88 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6094 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,024 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,3155 




THB


Thai baht


33,476 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4709 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5000 




INR


Indian rupee


78,0435 






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