do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9858 — Bosch Group/ELCO Group/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 422/05
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, electrical engineering, heating, merger control, property market, telecommunications








C_2020422EN.01000501.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9858 — Bosch Group/ELCO Group/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 422/05)
On 11 August 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 32020M9858. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9891 – Hayfin Capital Management/Frans Bonhomme Group) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 263/04
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pipeline transport, provision of services








C_2020263EN.01000401.xml










11.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9891 – Hayfin Capital Management/Frans Bonhomme Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 263/04)

1.   
On 3 August 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:






—


Hayfin Capital Management LLP (‘Hayfin’, United Kingdom), controlled by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (‘BCI’, Canada).










—


Frans Bonhomme Group (‘Frans Bonhomme’, France)




Hayfin acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Frans Bonhomme
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking Hayfin: provision of lending solutions to corporates and asset management services to institutional clients,










—


for undertaking Frans Bonhomme: distribution of system solutions (materials for the construction of water, sanitation, rainwater systems, etc.) and pipes for public works and construction professionals.






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.9891 – Hayfin Capital Management/Frans Bonhomme Group
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
E-mail: 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-522/20: Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, airport, control of State aid








C_2020378EN.01003701.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/37






Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Carpatair v Commission
(Case T-522/20)
(2020/C 378/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Carpatair SA (Timiş, Romania) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision on State aid SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) — Implemented by Romania for Timisoara International Airport — Wizz Air;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





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 a manifest error of law in the contested decision as regards the selective nature of the 2010 Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).






—


As recognised by Romanian courts, the discounts included in the 2010 AIP granted State aid to Wizz Air at the Timisoara Airport.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter.






—


First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Commission’s violation of its duty of care regarding the applicant’s allegation of price discrimination at the Timisoara Airport.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law by disregarding the State aid granted to Wizz Air through a discounted security charge.
Case C-379/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 11 August 2020 — B v Udlændingenævnet
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), child, family reunification, national, residence permit








C_2020348EN.01001101.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 11 August 2020 — B v Udlændingenævnet
(Case C-379/20)
(2020/C 348/16)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B

Defendant: Udlændingenævnet

Question referred

Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (1) on the development of the Association, which is linked to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC (2) of 23 December 1963, preclude the introduction and application of a new national measure under which family reunification between an economically active Turkish national who is lawfully resident in the Member State in question and that person’s child who is 15 years of age is subject to the condition that very specific grounds, including the consideration of family unity and the consideration of the best interests of the child, support such reunification?


(1)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

(2)  64/732/EEC: Council Decision of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (OJ 1964 217, p. 3685).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9619 — CDC/EDF/ENGIE/La Poste) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 375/05
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: blockchain, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, gas industry, merger control, postal service, provision of services, services of general interest








C_2020375EN.01004401.xml










6.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/44






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9619 — CDC/EDF/ENGIE/La Poste)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 375/05)
On 11 August 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 32020M9619. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: United States, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2020261EN.01000101.xml










11.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 261/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part

The Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 25 April 2007, and in Washington DC on 30 April 2007, entered into force on 29 June 2020, in accordance with Article 26 of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 29 May 2020.
Case T-504/20: Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020320EN.01002802.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/28






Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)
(Case T-504/20)
(2020/C 320/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Manòu — Application for registration No 14 704 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 1504/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-378/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: evidence, expert's report ordered by a court, national law, principle of proportionality, public institution, right to justice, right to work, self-employed person








C_2020443EN.01000302.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2020 — Stadtapotheke E
(Case C-378/20)
(2020/C 443/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Stadtapotheke E

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

Other party to the proceedings: AW

Questions referred







1.


Are rules of national law that oblige a court, when taking expert evidence as required in a procedure for the award of a licence, to obtain an expert’s report from an occupational self-governing organisation whose decision-making bodies are in fact dominated mostly by members of an occupational group whose interests tend to conflict with those of the occupational group to which the applicant for the licence belongs, or — in the event that such rules are contrary to EU law — from an official expert employed by a public authority, compatible with the appearance of impartiality of that court required by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










2.


Does a rule of national law that sets a projected guaranteed potential customer base — specifically at 5 500 people — which de facto cannot be verified by the courts, comply with the requirements of Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter in so far as, pursuant to those provisions, interference with such a guarantee is permissible only if the principle of proportionality is complied with?
Case T-505/20: Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Guo v EUIPO — Sand Cph (sandriver)
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wool








C_2020320EN.01002901.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/29






Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Guo v EUIPO — Sand Cph (sandriver)
(Case T-505/20)
(2020/C 320/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xiuling Guo (Shanyang Town, China) (represented by: L. Le Stanc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark sandriver — European Union trade mark No 15 856 297

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare admissible the action brought against the contested decision;










—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that there was a likelihood of confusion for the public between the earlier European Union word mark No 3 105 491 and the applicant’s later semi-figurative European Union trade mark No 15 856 297.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 10 August 2020 2020/C 263/03
Date: 2020-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020263EN.01000301.xml










11.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 August 2020
(2020/C 263/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1763 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4479 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90155 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2805 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0790 




ISK


Iceland króna


160,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6290 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,183 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,19 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4021 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8360 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,6055 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6445 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5739 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1166 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7840 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6158 




KRW


South Korean won


1 396,28 




ZAR


South African rand


20,8452 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2003 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4828 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 221,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9352 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,787 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,6154 




THB


Thai baht


36,630 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3697 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,3047 




INR


Indian rupee


88,1125 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.