do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10323 — KKR/LGP/CNG) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 256/05
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging product, thin sheet








C_2021256EN.01000601.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10323 — KKR/LGP/CNG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 256/05)

1.   
On 18 June 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, US)










—


Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. (‘LGP’, US)










—


Charter Next Generation Inc. (‘CNG’, US), solely controlled by LGP




KKR and LGP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of CNG.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


KKR: global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions,










—


LGP: private equity investment firm,










—


CNG: producer of high-performance, specialty films used in flexible packaging.






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.10323 — KKR/LGP/CNG
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-265/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Italy v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Clearance of the accounts — Conformity clearance — Financial corrections — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Risk of financial loss — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Primary administrative or judicial finding — Existence of an irregularity)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, closing of accounts, eligibility criteria, financial loss, reimbursement of aid








C_2021329EN.01001802.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/18






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-265/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Clearance of the accounts - Conformity clearance - Financial corrections - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Risk of financial loss - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Primary administrative or judicial finding - Existence of an irregularity)
(2021/C 329/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and R. Giuzzi, A. Giordano and L. Vignato, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, J. Aquilina and F. Moro, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 12 February 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2019 L 44, p. 14), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 12 February 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as excludes from EU financing expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic, amounting to EUR 305 122,74;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case T-624/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush) (EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a handgrip with a brush — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dental medicine, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01001901.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/19






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush)
(Case T-624/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a handgrip with a brush - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 329/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Welter’s Co. Ltd (Douliu, Taiwan) (represented by: T. Meinke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Case R 2428/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a handgrip with a brush as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Welter’s Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-402/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 June 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C; Other parties: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Association Council (EU), Türkiye, association agreement (EU), foreign national, public order, residence permit








C_2021391EN.01000901.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 June 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C; Other parties: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-402/21)
(2021/C 391/14)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C

Other parties: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.


Can Turkish nationals who have the rights referred to in Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 (1) still rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80?










2.


Does it follow from Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 that Turkish nationals can no longer rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 if, due to their personal conduct, they represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society?










3.


Can the new restriction whereby the right of residence of Turkish nationals may be terminated even after 20 years on grounds of public policy be justified by reference to the changed social perceptions which gave rise to that new restriction? Is it sufficient that the new restriction serves the public policy objective, or is it also required that the restriction be suitable for achieving that objective and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it? Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council






(1)  Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the EEC and Turkey.
Judgment of the Court of 30 June 2021 in Case E-15/20 criminal proceedings against P (Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 7, 63 and 64 – Unemployment benefits – Requirement to stay in the competent EEA State – Unemployed person going to another EEA State) 2021/C 417/06
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU national, Norway, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, legal domicile, penalty, principle of proportionality, social security legislation, unemployed person, unemployment insurance








C_2021417EN.01002601.xml










14.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/26






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 30 June 2021
in Case E-15/20
criminal proceedings against P


(Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 7, 63 and 64 – Unemployment benefits – Requirement to stay in the competent EEA State – Unemployed person going to another EEA State)


(2021/C 417/06)
In Case E-15/20, criminal proceedings against P – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Articles 3, 7, 28, 29 and 36 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 30 June 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


A requirement that the unemployed person must stay in the competent State to be entitled to a cash benefit in the event of unemployment in cases where the conditions of Articles 64, 65 or 65a are not fulfilled is compatible with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.










2.


Outside the situations expressly mentioned in Articles 64, 65 and 65a of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, a condition to stay in the competent EEA State for entitlement to unemployment benefits does not fall to be assessed under Articles 28, 29 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and is not incompatible with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.










3.


EEA States retain the power to determine whether criminal sanctions may be imposed for obtaining unemployment benefits by knowingly providing wrongful information. EEA States must, however, exercise that power in accordance with EEA law and its general principles, including the principle of proportionality.
Case T-635/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — State aid — Banking sector — Planned recapitalisation by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members — Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State — Waiver of rescue and initiation of a resolution procedure — Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU — Decision not to raise objections — Requests for information and positions adopted by the Commission during the preliminary examination stage — No causal link)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, access to EU information, aid to undertakings, bank, banking, central bank, company in difficulties, control of State aid, damages








C_2021329EN.01002001.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/20






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro and Others v Commission
(Case T-635/19) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - State aid - Banking sector - Planned recapitalisation by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members - Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Waiver of rescue and initiation of a resolution procedure - Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU - Decision not to raise objections - Requests for information and positions adopted by the Commission during the preliminary examination stage - No causal link)
(2021/C 329/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro (Pesaro, Italy), Montani Antaldi Srl (Pesaro), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano (Fano, Italy), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi (Jesi, Italy), Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata (Macerata, Italy) (represented by: A. Sandulli and B. Cimino, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, I. Barcew, A. Bouchagiar and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants inter alia on account of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission preventing the rescue of Banca delle Marche.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, Montani Antaldi Srl, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi and Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Macerata to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-51/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Mélin v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Plea of illegality — Rights of the defence — Error of fact)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2021320EN.01003702.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/37






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Mélin v Parliament
(Case T-51/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Plea of illegality - Rights of the defence - Error of fact)
(2021/C 320/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Joëlle Mélin (Aubagne, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 130 339,35 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the related debit note of 18 December 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Joëlle Mélin to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case T-501/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark PANTA RHEI — Earlier EU word mark PANTA RHEI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, eye disease, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2021329EN.01002901.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/29






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI)
(Case T-501/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark PANTA RHEI - Earlier EU word mark PANTA RHEI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 329/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stefan Makk (Graz, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek and L. Lapinskaite, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ubati Luxury Cosmetics, SL (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: C. Vendrell, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 (Case R 2337/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ubati Luxury Cosmetics and Mr Makk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Stefan Makk to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Case C-404/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Central Bank, social security legislation, social-security contribution, transfer of pension rights








C_2021357EN.01001401.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana
(Case C-404/21)
(2021/C 357/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Asti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WP

Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, Article 4 TEU, Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 8 of Annex IIIa to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank be interpreted as precluding a set of national rules or a national administrative practice which does not allow a worker who is a national of a Member State who has paid contributions to the national social security institution and who currently works for an EU institution, such as the ECB, to transfer to the pension scheme of that institution the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his or her own State?










2.


Based on the answer to the question set out above, must it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of national implementing legislation or a specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the EU institution, on the other?
Case T-15/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Skyliners v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLINERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYLINERS — Earlier EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Entitlement to file the opposition)
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, footwear industry, merchandising, professional sport, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021329EN.01002101.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/21






Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Skyliners v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLINERS)
(Case T-15/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYLINERS - Earlier EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Entitlement to file the opposition)
(2021/C 329/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer, and A. Brackenbury, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Skyliners.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2019 (Case R 798/2018-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO and Sky Ltd to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay jointly those incurred by Skyliners GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 June 2021 2021/C 256/03
Date: 2021-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021256EN.01000301.xml










30.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 June 2021
(2021/C 256/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1888 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4363 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85948 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1510 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0965 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1893 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,477 




HUF


Hungarian forint


351,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5193 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9275 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,3610 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5811 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4706 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2297 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7000 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5985 




KRW


South Korean won


1 341,25 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0520 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6814 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4960 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 339,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9353 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,765 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,4662 




THB


Thai baht


38,166 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8826 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6108 




INR


Indian rupee


88,3050 






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