do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-132/20: Action brought on 28 February 2020 — NEC Oncoimmunity v EASME
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, contract terms, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises, termination of a contract








C_2020161EN.01004601.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/46






Action brought on 28 February 2020 — NEC Oncoimmunity v EASME
(Case T-132/20)
(2020/C 161/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NEC Oncoimmunity A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: T. Nordby, R. Bråthen and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


in primary order, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU:






—


annul the contested decision (decision of 16 December 2019 terminating the participation of the applicant in the procedure H2020/EIC/SMEInst-2018-2020-2 in relation to the MEDIVAC(850078) project);










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.














—


in subsidiary order, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU:






—


declare that the contested decision is in breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 263 TFEU and one plea in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 272 TFEU.






1.


First plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law and misapplied the eligibility criteria for the SME Instrument grant laid down in Regulation No 1290/2013. (1)











2.


Second plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law as the contested decision is in breach of the principle of equal treatment.










3.


Third plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.










4.


Single plea in law under Article 272 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision results, notably because of the identified error in the interpretation of the applicable law and discriminatory practice, also in a misinterpretation and breach of the contractual obligations vis-à-vis the applicant.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81)
Case C-113/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 February 2020 — Slovenský plynárenský priemysel, a.s. v Finančné riaditel’stvo Slovenskej republiky
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, corporation tax, directive (EU), parent company, subsidiary, tax collection, tax law, taxpayer








C_2020390EN.01001701.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 February 2020 — Slovenský plynárenský priemysel, a.s. v Finančné riaditel’stvo Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-113/20)
(2020/C 390/24)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Slovenský plynárenský priemysel, a.s.

Defendant: Finančné riaditel’stvo Slovenskej republiky
By order of 1 October 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:
Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States does not apply in a situation in which in which the tax authorities of a Member State recover from the taxpayer unpaid corporation tax in respect of a tax period preceding the accession of that Member State to the European Union by means of a tax adjustment issued after that accession.


(1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.
Case C-119/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 28 February 2020 — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, State aid, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, eligibility criteria, rural development, young farmer








C_2020201EN.01001501.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 28 February 2020 — Līga Šenfelde v Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-119/20)
(2020/C 201/22)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal on a point of law: Līga Šenfelde

Other party to the proceedings: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

Must Article 19(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) in conjunction with other provisions of the aforementioned regulation and the European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020, be interpreted as meaning that:






1.


a farmer loses his or her ‘young farmer’ status solely by virtue of having received small farm development aid, as provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii) of the Regulation, two years previously;










2.


those provisions authorise Member States to enact legislation to the effect that a farmer is not to be paid the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation if he or she has already been granted the aid provided for in Article 19(1)(a)(iii);










3.


a Member State is has the power to refuse to cumulate aid for a farmer in the case where the cumulation sequence laid down in the rural development programme agreed with the European Commission has not been complied with?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.
Case T-135/20: Action brought on 28 February 2020 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master)
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metals, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020161EN.01004801.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/48






Action brought on 28 February 2020 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master)
(Case T-135/20)
(2020/C 161/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vulkano Research and Development, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: V. Wellens and C. Schellekens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ega sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Starogard Gdański, Poland)

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 EGA Master — European Union trade mark No 5 835 558

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 1038/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision with the exception to the finding that the Contested EUTM must be upheld for the products ‘Common metals and their alloys’ in Class 6;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) in conjunction with Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Manifest lack of motivation in the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 February 2020 2020/C 65/04
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020065EN.01000401.xml










28.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 February 2020
(2020/C 65/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0964 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4725 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84995 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5753 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0627 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2918 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,283 




HUF


Hungarian forint


338,37 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3124 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8100 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,7538 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6672 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4636 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5456 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7326 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5294 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,83 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8420 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6813 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4625 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 387,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6164 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,767 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,1052 




THB


Thai baht


34,701 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,8975 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2601 




INR


Indian rupee


78,5380 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9681 — Inflexion/ICG/Marston) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 73/02
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carrier, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2020073EN.01000301.xml










6.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9681 — Inflexion/ICG/Marston)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 73/02)
On 28 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 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 32020M9681. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9713 — EQT/Recover) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 75/01
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services, service








C_2020075EN.01000101.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9713 — EQT/Recover)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 75/01)
On 28 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 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 32020M9713. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-145/20: Action brought on 28 February 2020 — IV v Commission
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU national, access to EU information, indemnification, pre-school education, right to information, school attendance








C_2020201EN.01002502.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/25






Action brought on 28 February 2020 — IV v Commission
(Case T-145/20)
(2020/C 201/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IV (represented by: J. Lemmer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the European Commission and the Centre Polyvalent de l’Enfance Interinstitutionnel, jointly and severally to communicate to (X) the attendance records of his child (Y) for the years 2019 and 2020 in their possession, subject to a non-committal penalty payment of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the decision to be adopted;










—


order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of irrecoverable costs which the applicant had to incur in order to enforce his rights, as well as the costs and expenses of the present proceedings.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendant of Article 42 ‘Right of access to documents’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium’.
Case C-112/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgique) lodged on 28 February 2020 — M. A. v État belge
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, children's rights, family migration, foreign national, illegal migration, judicial review, return migration, right to justice








C_2020161EN.01004002.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgique) lodged on 28 February 2020 — M. A. v État belge
(Case C-112/20)
(2020/C 161/53)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M.A.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Should Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) which requires Member States, when implementing the directive, to take account of the best interests of the child, together with Article 13 of that directive and Articles 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring the best interests of the child, an EU citizen, to be taken into account even if the return decision is taken with regard to the child’s parent alone?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 65/05
Date: 2020-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy production, investment company, merger control, wind energy








C_2020065EN.01000501.xml










28.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 65/05)

1.   
On 19 February 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:






—


APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’) (the Netherlands), ultimately owned by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP,










—


InfraRed Capital Partners Limited (‘IRCP’) (UK),










—


Merkur Offshore GmbH (‘Merkur’) (Germany).




APG and IRCP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Merkur.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for APG: infrastructure investor,










—


for IRCP: infrastructure investment manager,










—


for Merkur: German offshore wind assets.






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.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur
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.