do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10369 — APG/Stockholms Stadshus/Stockholm Exergi Holding) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 330/01
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, economic concentration, energy production, harbour installation, heating, insurance, merger control, pension scheme, property leasing, waste management, water supply








C_2021330EN.01000101.xml










17.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10369 — APG/Stockholms Stadshus/Stockholm Exergi Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 330/01)
On 11 August 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 32021M10369. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 10 August 2021 2021/C 322/02
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021322EN.01000201.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 August 2021
(2021/C 322/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1722 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,48 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4373 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84568 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2145 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0813 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4680 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,382 




HUF


Hungarian forint


352,86 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5755 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9160 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0813 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5965 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4729 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1228 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6758 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5920 




KRW


South Korean won


1 349,76 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3605 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5975 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4985 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 863,01 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9566 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,007 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,3225 




THB


Thai baht


39,222 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1471 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5629 




INR


Indian rupee


87,1930 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10332 — KKR/Equitix Tetragon/Target) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 332/03
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy efficiency, energy production, insurance, merger control, renewable energy, services of general interest, social facilities, transport infrastructure








C_2021332EN.01000301.xml










18.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10332 — KKR/Equitix Tetragon/Target)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 332/03)
On 11 August 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 32021M10332. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-490/21: Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, competition (EU), indemnification, job vacancy, principle of legal certainty, promotion, recruitment, servant (EU)








C_2021422EN.01002002.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/20






Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB
(Case T-490/21)
(2021/C 422/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




accordingly,






—


annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential] (1) to the position concerned;










—


annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2021, refusing the applicant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021;










—


order the EIB to compensate the applicant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000;










—


order the EIB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging procedural irregularities and breach of the guidelines on internal mobility and promotion. The applicant submits in that regard, inter alia, that he was never informed of the selection criteria or of the composition of the selection board.










2.


Second plea, alleging violation of the vacancy notice and manifest errors of assessment. In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the candidate selected at the end of the selection procedure manifestly did not meet the criteria set.










3.


Third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging that the guidelines and the vacancy notice, in combination or separately, are unlawful in that they violate the principles of legal certainty, transparency and good administration.






(1)  Confidential data redacted.
Case C-494/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 11 August 2021 — Eircom Limited v Commission for Communications Regulation
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competitiveness, consumer protection, costing, postal and telecommunications services, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network, universal service








C_2021431EN.01000901.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/9






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 11 August 2021 — Eircom Limited v Commission for Communications Regulation
(Case C-494/21)
(2021/C 431/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eircom Limited

Defendant: Commission for Communications Regulation

Notice parties: Vodafone Ireland Limited, Three Ireland (Hutchinson) Limited, Three Ireland Services (Hutchinson) Limited

Questions referred

In circumstances where:






1.


the telecommunications market has been liberalised and there are multiple telecommunication services providers operating in the market;










2.


one service provider (the ‘Universal Service Provider’ or ‘USP’) has been selected by the National Regulatory Authority (‘NRA’) to perform Universal Service Obligations (‘USOs’);










3.


it has been determined by the NRA that there is a positive net cost associated with the performance of the USOs (‘USO Net Cost’); and










4.


it has been determined by the NRA that the USO Net Cost is material compared to the administrative costs of the establishment of a sharing mechanism in respect of the USO Net Cost amongst participants in the market;




If the NRA is required, pursuant to its obligations under the Universal Services Directive 2002/22 (1), to consider whether the USO Net Cost is excessive in view of the ability of the USP to bear it, account being taken of all the USP's characteristics, in particular, the quality of its equipment, its economic and financial situation and its market share (as referred at para. 42 of Base) is it permissible under the Directives for the NRA to conduct that assessment by having regard exclusively to the characteristics/situation of the USP, or is it required to assess the characteristics/situation of the USP relative to its competitors in the relevant market?


(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002, L 108, p. 51).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10425 — BCP Dornoch Parent/DexKo) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 322/03
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplier, technology, vehicle parts








C_2021322EN.01000301.xml










11.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10425 — BCP Dornoch Parent/DexKo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 322/03)

1.   
On 2 August 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:






—


BCP Dornoch Parent Inc. (‘BCP’, USA), controlled by Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (USA),










—


DexKo Global Holdings Inc. (‘DexKo’, USA), controlled by KPS Capital Partners, LP (USA).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BCP is controlled by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., a global asset manager that offers a range of public and private investment products and services, with a focus on real estate, infrastructure, renewable power and private equity,










—


DexKo is a supplier of engineered running gear technology, chassis assemblies and related components. DexKo sells axle assemblies, chassis, suspension and related components and other components for a range of trailer and other towable end-products.






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.10425 — BCP Dornoch Parent/DexKo
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10284 – KPS / CROWN EUROPEAN TINPLATE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 489/01
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, flat product, investment company, merger control, packaging








C_2021489EN.01000101.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 489/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10284 – KPS / CROWN EUROPEAN TINPLATE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 489/01)
On 11 August 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 policy’ 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 32021M10284. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-493/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 11 August 2021 — K.M. v The Director of Public Prosecutions
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: catch of fish, common fisheries policy, fishing controls, fishing rights, penalty, principle of proportionality, right to work, sea fishing, standard of living








C_2021401EN.01000601.xml










4.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/6






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 11 August 2021 — K.M. v The Director of Public Prosecutions
(Case C-493/21)
(2021/C 401/07)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: K.M.

Defendant: The Director of Public Prosecutions

Questions referred







1.


Do the terms of Article 89 and/or 90 of the Regulation (1), and the requirements of proportionality under the Charter and EU law, require the sentencing court to have a discretion to adjust, modulate or mitigate the extent of the forfeiture order of the catch and gear in particular having regard to the circumstances referred to in Articles 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009?










2.


Having regard to the potential impact on the livelihood of a Master as a consequence of an automatic mandatory forfeiture of all catch and gear, can a provision of national law such as section 28(5)(b) (2) which does not allow for a national court to examine any impact on the right to earn a livelihood of a person convicted on indictment of an offence contrary to that section and the Regulation (save in the context of considering what fine might be appropriate) be considered compatible with the terms of the Regulation, the Charter and EU law, having regard to the fundamental right of the Master to exercise his or her profession?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 1).

(2)  of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006
Case T-492/21: Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Aquind and Others v ACER
Date: 2021-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, electrical energy, energy grid, energy law








C_2021391EN.01002501.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/25






Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Aquind and Others v ACER
(Case T-492/21)
(2021/C 391/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Aquind Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: S. Goldberg, L. Van den Hende, L. Malý and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s Board of Appeal decision of 4 June 2021; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s Board of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal before it was inadmissible. It is argued that the defendant remained competent to replace its annulled decision (1) with a new one and to grant the exemption to AQUIND Interconnector under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (2). Furthermore, it is alleged that the defendant’s Board of Appeal failed to fulfill its obligation to ensure full and complete compliance with the Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 (3).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s Board of Appeal infringed requirements in Articles 25(3) and 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 2019/942 (4) and in the Rules of Procedure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal. It is argued that the defendant’s Board of Appeal did not follow the correct procedure with one of its members not attending the hearing, the oral proceedings not constituting evidence, and no deliberation meeting minutes having been published.






(1)  Decision A-001-2018, of 17 October 2018, of the defendant’s Board of Appeal.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15-35).

(3)  Judgment of 18 November 2020, Aquind v ACER, T-735/18, EU:T:2020:542.

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 22-53).