do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9899 — KKR/Koos Holding Cooperatief) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 251/15
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: camping, economic concentration, investment company, leisure park, merger control








C_2020251EN.01002001.xml










31.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9899 — KKR/Koos Holding Cooperatief)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 251/15)

1.   
On 24 July 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, United States)










—


Koos Holding Coöperatief U.A. (‘Koos Holding’, the Netherlands)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: global investment firm, which offers a broad range of alternative asset funds and other investment products to investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and other clients,










—


for Koos Holding: development and refurbishing of holiday parks, which it either manages and operates itself or for which it partners with the operator to act as booking agent. The holiday parks are operated under the ‘Roompot’ brand and range from basic campsites offering tents or bungalow accommodation to a selection of more upscale villas. Koos Holding Operates parks in the Netherlands and Germany, and is active as a booking agent for parks in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Denmark.






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.9899 — KKR/Koos Holding Cooperatief)
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 +32 229-64301
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-481/20: Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric cable, insulator, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2020304EN.01002401.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/24






Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)
(Case T-481/20)
(2020/C 304/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CoolTUBE — Application for registration No 18 022 606

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 1755/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-359/20 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton AE v European Commission
Date: 2020-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, principle of legal certainty, research and development








C_2020320EN.01001201.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/12






Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton AE v European Commission
(Case C-359/20 P)
(2020/C 320/16)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, M. Angelopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020 in Case T-195/18 Talanton Anonymi Emporiki — Symvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;










—


uphold the action brought by the applicant/appellant on 16 March 2018;










—


dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant/respondent;










—


order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







(1)


Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in performance of the contract at issue and breach of the requirement of legal certainty which requires the EU institutions to exercise their powers within a reasonable time.






—


Under the first part of the abovementioned ground, the appellant complains that the General Court misinterpreted the content of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable time, failing to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case.










—


By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that both the duration of the procedure and the positions adopted by the Commission during the procedure gave it the legitimate expectation that financial corrections would not be imposed upon it.














(2)


Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith as regards acceptance of the breach of the provisions regarding subcontracting in the carrying out of the audit by the Commission.






—


The General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, as interpreted by the Belgian Court of Cassation.