do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Special Report 04/2021 Customs controls: poor harmonisation hampers EU financial interests 2021/C 113/03
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: customs cooperation, customs fraud, customs harmonisation, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), customs union, fraud against the EU, import (EU), risk management








C_2021113EN.01000801.xml










31.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/8






Special Report 04/2021
Customs controls: poor harmonisation hampers EU financial interests
(2021/C 113/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 04/2021 Customs controls: poor harmonisation hampers EU financial interests has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 March 2021 2021/C 113/02
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021113EN.01000701.xml










31.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 March 2021
(2021/C 113/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1741 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,48 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85378 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2473 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1057 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0613 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,122 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6582 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9210 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,7800 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5419 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4814 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1283 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6794 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5815 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,35 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5396 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7154 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5698 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 063,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8737 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,015 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,1591 




THB


Thai baht


36,714 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,7685 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2262 




INR


Indian rupee


86,2540 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration Case M.10164 – CVC/Stark Group Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 113/07
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail selling








C_2021113EN.01001201.xml










31.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/12






Prior notification of a concentration
Case M.10164 – CVC/Stark Group
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 113/07)

1.   
On 23 March 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:






—


CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg)










—


STARK Group A/S (‘Stark’, Denmark)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CVC: CVC and its subsidiaries manage investment funds and platforms. In particular, CVC owns Ahlsell AB, which is active in the retail and distribution of installation products for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, electricals, tools and supplies, as well as building materials.










—


for Stark: retail sale and distribution of building materials in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden.






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.10164 – CVC/Stark Group
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-179/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — QN v Commission
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, indemnification, right to justice, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021206EN.01003802.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/38






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — QN v Commission
(Case T-179/21)
(2021/C 206/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QN (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s CDR (1) of 2019;










—


subsidiarily, annul the applicant’s CDR in so far it contains contested comments;










—


together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the CDR of 2019;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and










—


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 that the defendant breached its obligation to set objectives in the CDR. The applicant also argues that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty of care and of the principle of good administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breached Article 7(3) of the defendant’s decision of 16 December 2013 (2) and of the defendant’s internal Guidance for RO (3). The applicant further complains that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its power. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant also complains that the defendant infringed the rules of objectivity and impartiality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 296(2) of the TFEU. The applicant also argues that the defendant breached Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty to state reasons.






(1)  Career Development Report.

(2)  Commission decision of 16.12.2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations [C (2013) 8985 final].

(3)  Commission internal directive ‘Constructive dialogue and fair report: guidance for Reporting Officers’.
Case T-176/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — CCTY Bearing Company v EUIPO — CCVI International (CCTY)
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bearing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021206EN.01003701.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/37






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — CCTY Bearing Company v EUIPO — CCVI International (CCTY)
(Case T-176/21)
(2021/C 206/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CCTY Bearing Company (Zhenjiang, China) (represented by: L. Genz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CCVI International Srl (Vicenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark CCTY — European Union trade mark No 11 550 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 779/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings and the cancellation proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


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-203/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Burgas (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against ‘DELTA STROY 2003’ EOOD
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, legal person, penalty, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2021228EN.01002501.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Burgas (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against ‘DELTA STROY 2003’ EOOD
(Case C-203/21)
(2021/C 228/34)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad Burgas

Party to the main proceedings

‘DELTA STROY 2003’ EOOD

Questions referred









1.


Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person for a specific criminal offence the commission of which has not yet been established because it is the subject of parallel criminal proceedings which have not been definitively concluded?












2.


Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person by fixing the amount of that penalty at the amount of the proceeds which would have been obtained from a specific criminal offence the commission of which has not yet been established because it is the subject of parallel criminal proceedings which have not been definitively concluded?
Case T-178/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — LF v Commission
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, EU institution, European official, France, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021206EN.01003801.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/38






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — LF v Commission
(Case T-178/21)
(2021/C 206/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: LF (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 20 May 2020 not to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as, during the ten-year reference period, he was based in Belgium exclusively to carry out his duties for the European institutions, while keeping the permanent centre of his interests in France, where he has lived since the age of four, and where his family and in-laws are based.
Case C-211/21 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2021 by 12seasons GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-329/19, 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021462EN.01002402.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/24






Appeal brought on 31 March 2021 by 12seasons GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-329/19, 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
(Case C-211/21 P)
(2021/C 462/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: 12seasons GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny
By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that 12seasons GmbH should bear its own costs.
Case C-200/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 31 March 2021 — TU and SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale S.A. and Next Capital Solutions Limited
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, civil procedure, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, unfair terms of contract








C_2021320EN.01001202.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 31 March 2021 — TU and SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale S.A. and Next Capital Solutions Limited
(Case C-200/21)
(2021/C 320/15)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: TU and SU

Respondents: BRD Groupe Société Générale S.A. and Next Capital Solutions Limited

Question referred

Does Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Article 712 et seq. of Chapter VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down a period of 15 days within which a debtor may, by way of an objection to enforcement, rely on the unfairness of a contractual term of the enforceable instrument, given that an action seeking to establish the existence of unfair terms in an enforceable instrument is not subject to any time limit and, in this connection, a debtor may seek suspension of enforcement of the instrument under Article 638(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-172/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Valve v Commission
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, electronic game, geo-blocking, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2021228EN.01003201.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/32






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Valve v Commission
(Case T-172/21)
(2021/C 228/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Valve Corp. (Bellevue, Washington, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, S. Völcker, and G. Caldini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 20 January 2021 relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases AT.40413 — Focus Home, AT.40414 — Koch Media, AT.40420 — ZeniMax, AT.40422 — Bandai Namco and AT.40424 — Capcom — C(2021) 75 final), in whole or in part; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the finding of agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers, resulting from the European Commission’s unjustified expansion of the relevant case law to encompass conduct that falls short of ‘concertation’ and wrong assessment of the conduct at issue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the Commission’s finding that the alleged agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers restrict competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, resulting from the Commission’s failure to appreciate the novelty of the conduct at issue, and wrong assessment of the relevant legal and economic context, namely the relevance of the Copyright Directive, the role of Valve as a two-sided platform, and the nature of the products and services at issue (digital videogames).
Case T-174/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Agrofert v Parliament
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, official document








C_2021206EN.01003401.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/34






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Agrofert v Parliament
(Case T-174/21)
(2021/C 206/42)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Agrofert, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the European Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2021, A (2019) 8551 C (D 300153), refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents requested under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;










—


order the defendant to pay all costs;










—


make any further provision that it deems necessary.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The first plea in law is based on the claim that the defendant did not establish that the conditions for refusing access to the requested documents were fulfilled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Disclosure of the requested documents could not lead to the undermining of the protection of the purpose of investigations, as invoked by the defendant. The defendant did not establish that in the present case granting access to the documents, whose content is actually already partially in the public domain, would pose any risk of specific and actual harm to that investigation, let alone that such a risk is reasonably foreseeable.










2.


The second plea in law is based on the claim that, moreover, the defendant entirely disregarded the overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents, which in this case consists in respect for the values of the rule of law based on observance of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Case T-173/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish)
Date: 2021-03-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household article








C_2021217EN.01004901.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/49






Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish)
(Case T-173/21)
(2021/C 217/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuki Cofresco Srl (Volpiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 516836-0007 (grill dish)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 in Case R 1856/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the application for a declaration that the contested Community design is invalid;










—


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





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.