do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9507 — Salini Impregilo/Astaldi) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 90/04
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services








C_2020090EN.01000401.xml










19.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9507 — Salini Impregilo/Astaldi)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 90/04)

1.   
On 9 March 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:






—


Salini Impregilo S.p.A. (‘Salini Impregilo’, Italy);










—


Astaldi S.p.A. (‘Astaldi’, Italy).




Salini Impregilo acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Astaldi.
The concentration is accomplished in two phases: first, the acquisition of control will be accomplished through contractual rights arising from an offer submitted by Salini Impregilo to Astaldi’s controlling shareholder and, at the end of the court-supervised insolvency proceedings, by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Salini Impregilo: general contractor active in the market for construction services on a global scale, specifically in 10 EU Member States including Italy, Romania and Poland and in other 30 countries outside the EEA;










—


for Astaldi: general contractor active in the market for construction services on a global scale, specifically in four EU Member States including Italy, Romania and Poland and in 14 countries outside the EEA.






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.9507 — Salini Impregilo/Astaldi
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.
Case C-45/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de A Coruña — Spain) — Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña SA v Ayuntamiento de A Coruña (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Article 8 — Transitional arrangements — Article 8(3) — Expiry of public service contracts — Calculation of the maximum contractual term set at 30 years — Determination of the date from which the maximum term of 30 years starts to run)
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, public transport, rail transport, road transport, services contract, services of general interest, termination of a contract








C_2020222EN.01001501.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/15






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de A Coruña — Spain) — Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña SA v Ayuntamiento de A Coruña
(Case C-45/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 8 - Transitional arrangements - Article 8(3) - Expiry of public service contracts - Calculation of the maximum contractual term set at 30 years - Determination of the date from which the maximum term of 30 years starts to run)
(2020/C 222/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña SA

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de A Coruña

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum term of 30 years, laid down in that provision for the contracts referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of that regulation, runs from the date of entry into force of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 19 March 2020 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Latvijas Banka (ECB/2020/14) 2020/C 98/01
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Latvia, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area








C_2020098EN.01000101.xml










25.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/1






RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 19 March 2020
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Latvijas Banka (ECB/2020/14)
(2020/C 98/01)
The Governing Council of the European central bank,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of Latvijas Banka’s current external auditors will end following the audit for the financial year 2019. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2020.










(3)


Latvijas Banka has selected SIA Ernst & Young Baltic as its external auditors for the financial years 2020 to 2024,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that SIA Ernst & Young Baltic should be appointed as the external auditors of Latvijas Banka for the financial years 2020 to 2024.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 19 March 2020.


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9764 — Red Rock Power/Capman Infra Lux Management/NH-Amundi Asset Management/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 100/02
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, holding company, investment company, merger control, power plant, wind energy








C_2020100EN.01000201.xml










27.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9764 — Red Rock Power/Capman Infra Lux Management/NH-Amundi Asset Management/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 100/02)
On 19 March 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 32020M9764. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-154/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IY v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, equal treatment, formation of a party, indemnification, political group (EP), right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020201EN.01002801.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/28






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IY v Parliament
(Case T-154/20)
(2020/C 201/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IY (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:
Principally:






—


annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;










—


order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs;




In the alternative:






—


find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;










—


accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;










—


order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant takes the view that the dismissal decision, which was based exclusively on the alleged dissolution of the European political group ENF, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second plea, alleging misuse of powers, in that the European Parliament used its powers to disguise a simple measure changing the name of a European political group as the dissolution of a political group.










3.


Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. The applicant takes the view that his right to be heard prior to any dismissal decision has not been respected.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Parliament applied separate procedures to the staff of the political group that had allegedly been dissolved.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.




In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.
Case T-164/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BG v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, legal aid, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020201EN.01003301.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/33






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BG v Parliament
(Case T-164/20)
(2020/C 201/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BG (represented by: A. Tymen, L. Levi, and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision dated 20 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of July 2017;










—


if needed, annul the defendant’s decision dated 10 December 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 20 August 2019;










—


grant compensation of the applicant’s moral harm suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 50 000 Euro;










—


reimburse the applicant’s incurred costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging the violation of the fundamental right to be heard (article 41, paragraph 2, a) of the Charter).












2.


Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the fundamental right to have his affairs treated impartially and fairly (article 41, paragraph 1, of the Charter) and the violation of article 24 SR and of the duty of care.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the fundamental right to receive a decision that states reasons (article 41, paragraph 2, c) of the Charter and article 25 SR).












4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and breach of articles 12a and 24 SR.
On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage she suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 18 March 2020 2020/C 90/01
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020090EN.01000101.xml










19.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 March 2020
(2020/C 90/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0934 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,78 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4732 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,92190 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0223 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0546 




ISK


Iceland króna


152,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7010 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,154 




HUF


Hungarian forint


351,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5010 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8450 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0491 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,8568 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5749 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4917 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8727 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5760 




KRW


South Korean won


1 377,80 




ZAR


South African rand


18,5624 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6925 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5935 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 892,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7793 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,441 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,0959 




THB


Thai baht


35,448 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,6133 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,2014 




INR


Indian rupee


81,1355 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-612/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — ClientEarth v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and (6) — Exceptions to the right of access — Protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Documents drawn up by the European Commission’s legal service concerning Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements — Partial refusal of access)
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, alternative dispute resolution, international negotiations, international relations, negotiation of an agreement (EU), trade agreement (EU)








C_2020222EN.01001201.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/12






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — ClientEarth v European Commission
(Case C-612/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and (6) - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Documents drawn up by the European Commission’s legal service concerning Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access)
(2020/C 222/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer and E. M. Raedts, advocaten, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-157/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA)
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, interpreting, recording equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, translation








C_2020191EN.01002202.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/22






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA)
(Case T-157/20)
(2020/C 191/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LICHTYOGA — Application for registration No 18 054 208

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2019 in Case R 2317/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-155/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IZ v Parliament
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, equal treatment, formation of a party, indemnification, political group (EP), right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020201EN.01002901.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/29






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IZ v Parliament
(Case T-155/20)
(2020/C 201/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:
Principally:






—


annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;










—


order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs;




In the alternative:






—


find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;










—


accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;










—


order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-154/20, IY v Parliament.
In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.
Case T-152/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BSH Hausgeräte v EUIPO (Home Connect)
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building services, computer equipment, electrical equipment, on line data service, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01002101.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/21






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BSH Hausgeräte v EUIPO (Home Connect)
(Case T-152/20)
(2020/C 191/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Home Connect — Application for registration No 18 077 851

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2020 in Case R 1751/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-153/20: Action brought on 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)
Date: 2020-03-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, interpreting, recording medium, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, translation








C_2020191EN.01002201.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/22






Action brought on 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)
(Case T-153/20)
(2020/C 191/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA — Application for registration No 18 054 218

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 in Case R 2346/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.