do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 February 2020 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40528 – MELIÁ (Holiday Pricing) Rapporteur: France 2020/C 182/05
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, control of restrictive practices, hotel industry, restriction on competition, sale, sanction (EU), travel agency, vertical agreement








C_2020182EN.01000601.xml










2.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/6






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 February 2020 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40528 – MELIÁ (Holiday Pricing)
Rapporteur: France
(2020/C 182/05)

1.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that Melia’s vertical contracts with tour operators as outlined in the draft decision restricted active and passive sales for hotel accommodation and constitute a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision as regards the duration of the infringement.



3.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision does not meet the conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement.



4.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision.



5.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



6.   

The members (7 Member States) of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 7 February 20202020/C 44/04
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020044EN.01000401.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 February 2020
(2020/C 44/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0969 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,51 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4724 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84720 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5455 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0705 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1673 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,030 




HUF


Hungarian forint


338,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2653 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7613 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5688 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6417 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4604 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5168 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7094 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5255 




KRW


South Korean won


1 309,78 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4204 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6711 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4550 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 063,25 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5412 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,816 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,0203 




THB


Thai baht


34,333 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7078 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5281 




INR


Indian rupee


78,3625 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-67/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Mr M.
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, asylum seeker, removal, return migration, right of asylum








C_2020161EN.01003201.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Mr M.
(Case C-67/20)
(2020/C 161/42)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Defendant: Mr M.

Questions referred







1.


Is a remedy, provided by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)











2.


Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an action brought against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Case C-69/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Ms C.
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, asylum seeker, removal, return migration, right of asylum








C_2020161EN.01003302.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Ms C.
(Case C-69/20)
(2020/C 161/44)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Defendant: Ms C.

Questions referred







1.


Is a remedy, provided by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)











2.


Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an action brought against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Case T-75/20: Action brought on 10 February 2020 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, electronic device, hoisting equipment, industrial equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020103EN.01003601.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/36






Action brought on 10 February 2020 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)
(Case T-75/20)
(2020/C 103/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Abitron Germany GmbH (Langquaid, Germany) (represented by: T. Matschke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetronic International, Inc. (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark NOVA — EU trade mark No 13 711 718

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 in Case R 521/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare EU trade mark NOVA No 13 711 718 as invalid;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-68/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Ms C.
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, appeal, asylum seeker, removal, return migration, right of asylum








C_2020161EN.01003301.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2020 — Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil) v Ms C.
(Case C-68/20)
(2020/C 161/43)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Defendant: Ms C.

Questions referred







1.


Is a remedy, provided by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)











2.


Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an action brought against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9680 — La Voix du Nord/SIM/Mediacontact/Roof Media) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 99/03
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: digital technology, economic concentration, mass media, merger control








C_2020099EN.01000301.xml










26.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9680 — La Voix du Nord/SIM/Mediacontact/Roof Media)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 99/03)
On 10 February 2020, 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 French 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 32020M9680. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9713 — EQT/Recover) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 44/05
Date: 2020-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services, service








C_2020044EN.01000501.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9713 — EQT/Recover)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 44/05)

1.   
On 31 January 2020, 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:





—


EQT VIII (‘EQT’), controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. (‘EFMS’, Luxembourg).










—


Navie Oy (Finland).




EFMS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Navie Oy.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for EFMS: EQT is an investment fund that seeks to make investments primarily in Europe, with a focus on Northern Europe. EQT controls Anticimex which specialises in offering services to prevent pest infestations but also offers damage control services such as dehumidification and moisture inspection services,










—


Navie Oy is the holding company for the Recover group companies which are active in the provision of damage control services, environmental services as well as demolition and concrete drilling services in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.






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.9713 — EQT/Recover
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.