do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9970 — Cordes & Graefe/FACQ) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 71/09
Date: 2021-03-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, heating, merger control, plumbing equipment, retail trade, supply, wholesale trade








C_2021071EN.01006201.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/62






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9970 — Cordes & Graefe/FACQ)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 71/09)

1.   
On 18 January 2021, 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:






—


Cordes & Graefe KG (‘Cordes & Graefe’, Germany); and










—


The FACQ Group (‘FACQ’, Belgium). FACQ includes:






(a)


FACQ SA;










(b)


Immobilière les blés d’or SA;










(c)


Immobilière Weideveld SA; and










(d)


Renoma SRL.








Cordes & Graefe acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over FACQ.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Cordes & Graefe: wholesale and retail supply of sanitary, plumbing, ventilation, heating and air conditioning products, electrical equipment, roofing, excavation and industrial technologies, mainly to professional customers; and










—


for FACQ: retail supply of sanitary, plumbing, ventilation, heating and air conditioning products to professional and non-professional customers.






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.9970 — Cordes & Graefe/FACQ
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-133/21: Action brought on 1 March 2021 — QK v ECB
Date: 2021-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, damages, loss, price of securities, shareholder, trade licence








C_2021182EN.01005902.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/59






Action brought on 1 March 2021 — QK v ECB
(Case T-133/21)
(2021/C 182/80)
Language of the case: Latvian

Parties


Applicant: QK (represented by: A. Bērziņš, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


find the application admissible and examine the substance of the case;










—


order the ECB to pay the applicant EUR 15 583 195 in compensation for the losses sustained;










—


order the ECB to pay all the applicant’s costs;










—


require the ECB to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Relying on Article 268 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the applicant has raised a single plea in law. In that plea the applicant submits that, by adopting on 3 March 2016 the allegedly unfounded decision to withdraw the operating licence of Trasta Komercbanka AS, (1) a bank partly owned by the applicant, the ECB was responsible for the loss in the value of the applicant’s shares in that bank.


(1)  European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of 3 March 2016 on the withdrawal of the licence (authorisation) of Trasta Komercbanka, replaced by Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/2 of 11 July 2016, which is the subject of an application for annulment lodged with the General Court in Case T-698/16, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB, in which proceedings are pending (OJ 2016 C 441, p. 29; corrigendum in OJ 2017 C 6, p. 57).
Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2021/357 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 98/683/EC concerning exchange rate matters relating to the CFA franc and the Comorian franc (Official Journal of the European Union L 69 of 26 February 2021)
Date: 2021-03-01
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Comoros, France, WAEMU countries, West African Economic and Monetary Union, cooperation agreement, exchange rate, monetary policy, national currency








L_2021070EN.01001501.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 70/15







Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2021/357 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 98/683/EC concerning exchange rate matters relating to the CFA franc and the Comorian franc

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 69 of 26 February 2021
)


On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 1, in the title:
for:


                  ‘Council Decision (EU) 2021/357 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 98/683/EC concerning exchange rate matters relating to the CFA franc and the Comorian franc’,

read:


                  ‘Council Decision (EU) 2021/357 of 25 January 2021 amending Decision 98/683/EC concerning exchange rate matters relating to the CFA franc and the Comorian franc’.

On page 3:
for:


                  ‘Done at Brussels, 25 February 2021.’,

read:


                  ‘Done at Brussels, 25 January 2021.’.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 February 2021 2021/C 71/08
Date: 2021-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021071EN.01006101.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/61






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 February 2021
(2021/C 71/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2121 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,83 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87053 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1388 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0986 




ISK


Iceland króna


152,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4012 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,195 




HUF


Hungarian forint


361,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5186 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8750 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,0168 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5605 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5331 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4010 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6622 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6106 




KRW


South Korean won


1 367,10 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1025 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8385 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5830 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 353,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9096 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,090 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,6697 




THB


Thai baht


36,799 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6644 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,2879 




INR


Indian rupee


89,5766 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-129/21: Action brought on 1 March 2021 — Colombani v EEAS
Date: 2021-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Union delegation, administrator, competition (EU), diplomatic profession, equal treatment, managing director, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021182EN.01005901.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/59






Action brought on 1 March 2021 — Colombani v EEAS
(Case T-129/21)
(2021/C 182/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Canada, notified by a note of 6 July 2020 signed by the Director of Human Resources;










—


annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of Director MENA, notified by a note of 17 April 2020 signed by the Director of Human Resources;










—


annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s complaint R/353/20;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, relating to unlawfulness of the rejection of the applicant’s application as a national diplomat and a plea of illegality in respect of the vacancy notices covered by the application, namely that concerning the post of Director for Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (vacancy notice 2020/48) and that concerning the post of Head of the Delegation to Canada (vacancy notice 2020/134).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment with regard to the selection requirement relating to experience in a middle management post or equivalent function for at least two years;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, legal certainty and predictability in that the assessment of the professional experience is narrowly applied to the applicant in contrast with the flexibility shown with regard to the other applicants and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s grade and infringement of the principle that a person may not invoke his own fault;










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the type of functions performed by the applicant.