do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-425/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KU v EEAS
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020297EN.01004301.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/43






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KU v EEAS
(Case T-425/20)
(2020/C 297/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KU (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the EEAS of 17 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request of assistance;










—


annul the decision of 3 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the defendant to pay EU 15 000 as fair compensation of the harassment suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the 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 insufficient motivation and failure to review evidence.






—


It is argued that the decisions of 17 September 2019 and 3 April 2020 of the EEAS are not sufficiently motivated, which is contrary to the duty of the administration to give reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour).














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law: infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.






—


The EEAS violated Article 12a of the Staff Regulations while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance of the applicant constituted psychological harassment within the meaning of this article.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






—


The EEAS committed a manifest error of assessment while refusing to consider that the behaviour of X described in the request for assistance constituted psychological harassment.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide assistance: infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.






—


It is argued that the period of more than sixteen months was an unreasonable period of time for an inquiry and that the EEAS, conjointly with the IDOC, violated the principle of reasonable time as well as the duty to act quickly and thus, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9855 – Onex/Independent Clinical Services) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 219/11
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU investment, economic concentration, employment service, health service, life sciences, merger control, service, social services








C_2020219EN.01001801.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9855 – Onex/Independent Clinical Services)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 219/11)

1.   
On 24 June 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:






—


Onex Corporation (‘Onex’, Canada),










—


Independent Clinical Services (United Kingdom), controlled by TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P.




Onex acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Independent Clinical Services.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Onex: invests in various businesses worldwide including electronics manufacturing services, healthcare imaging, insurance services, packaging products and food retail and restaurants.










—


for Independent Clinical Services: provides workforce management solutions, health and social care services and staffing services to the healthcare, social care and life sciences sectors. It is present primarily in the United Kingdom and to a limited extent in the rest of Europe, the US and Asia-Pacific.






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.9855 – Onex/Independent Clinical Services
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.
Council Decision of 3 July 2020 appointing members of the Scientific and Technical Committee 2020/C 223 I/01
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: appointment of members, scientific committee (EU), technical committee (EU)




CI2020223EN.01000101.xml










7.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 223/1






COUNCIL DECISION
of 3 July 2020
appointing members of the Scientific and Technical Committee
(2020/C 223 I/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 134(2) thereof,
After consulting the European Commission,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decision of 6 November 2018 (1), the Council appointed the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (‘Committee’) for the period from 6 November 2018 to 6 November 2023.










(2)


Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and from the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Euratom’) and in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which applies to Euratom by virtue of Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and Article 7(1) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (2), the mandates of the three members of the Committee nominated by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Frank BRISCOE, Mr Martin MURRAY and Ms Fiona RAYMENT, have become vacant. Three new members should therefore be appointed for the remainder of their term of office,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following persons are hereby appointed members of the Scientific and Technical Committee until 6 November 2023:






—


Mr Andris ANSPOKS,










—


Mr Emmanuel SINAGRA,










—


Ms Beata TYBURSKA-PUESCHEL.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.


Done at Brussels, 3 July 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH




(1)  Council Decision of 6 November 2018 appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (OJ C 403, 9.11.2018, p. 2).

(2)  OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7.
Notice of information on postponement of entry into application of MiFIR open access provisions with regard to exchange-traded derivatives 2020/C 219 I/01
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: administrative check, credit institution, epidemic, financial control, financial derivative, financial legislation, financial transaction, infectious disease, investment company, market supervision








CI2020219EN.01000101.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 219/1






Notice of information on postponement of entry into application of MiFIR open access provisions with regard to exchange-traded derivatives
(2020/C 219 I/01)
Article 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)(‘MiFIR’) provides for a transitional period during which Articles 35 or 36 of MiFIR do not apply to those central clearing counterparties (‘CCPs’) or trading venues which made a request to benefit from this transitional arrangement with respect to exchange-traded derivatives.
The transitional period expires on 3 July 2020. The current market environment, with a high degree of uncertainty and volatility driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, increases operational risks for CCPs and trading venues. Increased risk requires more focus on business continuity and the assessment of access requests may, in the current environment, have negative repercussions on the orderly functioning of markets in trading and clearing of exchange- traded derivatives. The co-legislators therefore agreed to extend the transitional period until 3 July 2021.
In consequence, market participants should be aware that the co-legislators agreed to extend the transitional arrangements in Article 54(2) concerning Articles 35 or 36 of MiFIR, effective as of 4 July 2020. The extension applies to those CCPs or trading venues, which made a request to their competent authorities to benefit from the transitional arrangements with respect to exchange-traded derivatives.


(1)  OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9862 – Fiege/Reiner Kurzhals/Cornelius Brosche/Remondis/WDL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 278/02
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information analysis, logistics, merger control, service, software, waste disposal, waste recycling, water treatment








C_2020278EN.01000201.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9862 – Fiege/Reiner Kurzhals/Cornelius Brosche/Remondis/WDL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 278/02)
On 3 July 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 German language 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 32020M9862. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-417/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (PORTWO GIN)
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2020279EN.01005301.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/53






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (PORTWO GIN)
(Case T-417/20)
(2020/C 279/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: O. Santos Costa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PORTWO GIN — Application for registration No 16 308 462

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2020 in Case R 993/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9806 – Hyundai Capital Bank Europe/Sixt Leasing) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 226/01
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, hire purchase, insurance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle rental








C_2020226EN.01000101.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9806 – Hyundai Capital Bank Europe/Sixt Leasing)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 226/01)
On 3 July 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 32020M9806. 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.9884 – Thoma Bravo/Madison Dearborn Partners/Axiom) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 219/10
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2020219EN.01001701.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9884 – Thoma Bravo/Madison Dearborn Partners/Axiom)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 219/10)

1.   
On 25 June 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:






—


Thoma Bravo LLC (‘Thoma Bravo’, USA),










—


Madison Dearborn Partners (‘MDP’, USA),










—


Axiom Software Business of Kaufman, Hall & Associates (‘Axiom’, USA).




Thoma Bravo and MDP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Axiom.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Thoma Bravo: private equity investment firm providing equity and strategic support,










—


for MDP: private equity investment firm, with focus in basic industries; business & government software and services; financial and transaction services; health care; and telecom, media and technology services,










—


for Axiom: the provision of a cloud-based, comprehensive EPM solution that includes budgeting, forecasting, reporting, analytics, strategy management, consolidations, capital planning, profitability modelling and cost management.






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.9884 – Thoma Bravo/Madison Dearborn Partners/Axiom
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 T-415/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, data protection, dismissal, personal data, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020297EN.01004201.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/42






Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB
(Case T-415/20)
(2020/C 297/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KT (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded;










—


as a result:






—


annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.









Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 July 2020 2020/C 219/04
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020219EN.01000401.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 July 2020
(2020/C 219/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1286 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4506 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90225 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4635 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0648 




ISK


Iceland króna


156,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6873 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,632 




HUF


Hungarian forint


351,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4740 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8355 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7368 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6296 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5343 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7469 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7297 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5726 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,90 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0952 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9759 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5605 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 227,58 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8366 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,078 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,4434 




THB


Thai baht


35,054 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9823 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,5360 




INR


Indian rupee


84,3540 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-143/19: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Hellenic Republic — Operators on the market in electricity produced from renewable energy sources — Power purchase agreements — Legislative amendments with retroactive effect limiting tariff advantages — Complaint to the Commission alleging aid in favour of energy suppliers — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Status as an interested party — Safeguarding of procedural rights — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, energy supply, renewable energy, retroactivity of a law








C_2020348EN.01001301.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/13






Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission
(Case T-143/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Hellenic Republic — Operators on the market in electricity produced from renewable energy sources - Power purchase agreements - Legislative amendments with retroactive effect limiting tariff advantages - Complaint to the Commission alleging aid in favour of energy suppliers - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Status as an interested party - Safeguarding of procedural rights - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 348/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Metaxas and A. Bartosch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K.-Ph. Wojcik and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.38967 (2014/NN-2) — Greece — National operating aid scheme in favour of installations using renewable energy sources and highly efficient combined power and heat installations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Solar Ileias Bompaina AE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.