do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-431/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires v Commission
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, interpretation of the law, monopoly, powers of the institutions (EU), social security








C_2021422EN.01001801.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/18






Action brought on 16 July 2021 — L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires v Commission
(Case T-431/21)
(2021/C 422/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L'union nationale des indépendants solidaires (Lorient, France) (represented by: F. Ortega, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Commission has based its response to the complaint on a personal, and therefore unlawful, interpretation of Article 153(4) TFEU;










—


declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations arising out of the Treaties and, in particular, those laid down in the first paragraph of Article 105 TFEU;










—


declare that the CNAV and its related bodies are in breach of EU competition rules;










—


order the Commission to pay to the Union syndicale des indépendants solidaires the sum of EUR 2 500 in respect of its legal fees;










—


order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision Ares(2021)3291074 of 18 May 2021 rejecting its complaint, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU, by which the legislature confers on the Court of Justice of the European Union alone the jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of the Treaties. The applicant concludes from this that the Commission is obliged to recognise as law only the interpretation that the Court of Justice has given to the content of the Treaties.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 153(4) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission's interpretation of that article, according to which the design and management of social security systems, including pension systems, remain fundamentally a competence of the Member States, cannot succeed. The applicant adds that the Commission is exceeding its powers in order to justify its refusal to find an infringement of EU competition rules committed by the body to which the complaint refers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101, 102 and 105 TFEU on the ground that, according to the applicant, one of the Commission’s tasks is specifically to investigate, of its own motion, breaches of the principles laid down in those articles. The applicant takes the view that the body to which the complaint relates can only be regarded as an undertaking and concludes from this that EU competition rules therefore apply to it. The applicant concludes that the monopolistic position of the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse (CNAV) and its associated bodies is unlawful.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 15 July 2021 2021/C 284/03
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021284EN.01000301.xml










16.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2021
(2021/C 284/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1809 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4375 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85188 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2335 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0828 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3803 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,587 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5748 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9290 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,1061 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5876 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4808 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1726 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6888 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5995 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,13 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2028 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6304 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4918 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 143,25 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9627 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,272 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,5176 




THB


Thai baht


38,598 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0075 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5383 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10295 — ORANGE POLSKA/APG/FIBERCO JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 284/06
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications, telecommunications industry








C_2021284EN.01001801.xml










16.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10295 — ORANGE POLSKA/APG/FIBERCO JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 284/06)

1.   
On 9 July 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:






—


Orange Polska S.A. (‘OPL’, Poland)










—


APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’, Netherlands)










—


Joint venture Światłowód Inwestycje sp. z o.o. (‘FiberCo’, Poland)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for OPL: the provision of fixed and mobile telecommunications services, broadband and Pay-TV services in Poland, and other telecommunications value added services.










—


for APG: management of assets for pension funds in various sectors, including education, government construction, energy and utility companies, and infrastructure investments.










—


for FiberCo: expansion and builing of fiber infrastructure in order to offer wholesale access services in less dense areas in Poland.






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.10295 — ORANGE POLSKA/APG/FIBERCO JV
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 C-441/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19)
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2021382EN.01001801.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/18






Appeal brought on 16 July 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-628/20, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19)
(Case C-441/21 P)
(2021/C 382/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc, E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, and I. G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 5414 final of 31 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57659 (2020/N) — Spain — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation fund is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.
First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.
Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the appellant’s plea concerning the misapplication of the balancing test.
Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in the classification of the aid as an aid scheme.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.
Case T-432/21: Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021357EN.01003101.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/31






Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)
(Case T-432/21)
(2021/C 357/47)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 209 237

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2021 in Case R 2321/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 351/03
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, improvement of housing, investment company, merger control, retail trade, supply, wood industry








C_2021351EN.01001601.xml










1.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/16






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 351/03)
On 16 July 2021, 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 32021M10263. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.