do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10389 – PAI Partners/Pasubio) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 390/08
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: business management, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, leather industry, merger control








C_2021390EN.01001201.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10389 – PAI Partners/Pasubio)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 390/08)

1.   
On 17 September 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


PAI Partners (France),










—


Pasubio (Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PAI Partners: managing and/or advising dedicated private equity funds, which acquire majority participations in companies active in different industry sectors, such as business services, food and consumer goods, general industrials, healthcare and retail & distribution;










—


for Pasubio: tanning of leather and the production of finished leather products for use in various sectors, including automotive interiors, furniture and luxury goods.






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.10389 – PAI Partners/Pasubio
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-619/21: Action brought on 27 September 2021 — PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs v EUIPO — Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC)
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, computer equipment, computer system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021471EN.01005502.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/55






Action brought on 27 September 2021 — PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs v EUIPO — Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC)
(Case T-619/21)
(2021/C 471/79)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Stoop, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TAXMARC — Application for registration No 18 047 421

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2021 in Case R 131/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of this application and order Haufe-Lexware to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 September 2021 2021/C 390/02
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021390EN.01000201.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 September 2021
(2021/C 390/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1719 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,49 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85703 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1380 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0830 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0890 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,408 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,99 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6047 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9508 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,3590 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6165 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4895 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1240 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6687 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5865 




KRW


South Korean won


1 382,54 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5453 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5803 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4955 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 747,11 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9085 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,597 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,5104 




THB


Thai baht


39,200 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2332 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,6280 




INR


Indian rupee


86,4710 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-618/21: Action brought on 27 September 2021 — WV v CdT
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, full-time employment, indemnification, paid leave, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment








C_2021462EN.01005801.xml










15.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/58






Action brought on 27 September 2021 — WV v CdT
(Case T-618/21)
(2021/C 462/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: WV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision of 26 November 2020 by way of which the applicant’s employment of indefinite duration was brought to an end, without notice, as at 31 December 2020;










—


in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 17 June 2021 inasmuch as it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 26 February 2021 against the initial decision of 26 November 2020;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 48 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) in the light of the definition of the concept of ‘paid leave’ adopted by the CdT.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 48 of the CEOS in the light of Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and of Article 59(4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.