do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-315/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — TEAG v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Definition of ‘single concentration’ — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Analysis period — Analysis of market power — Decisive influence — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty of care)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002601.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/26






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — TEAG v Commission
(Case T-315/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Definition of ‘single concentration’ - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Analysis period - Analysis of market power - Decisive influence - Manifest errors of assessment - Duty of care)
(2023/C 235/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TEAG Thüringer Energie AG (Erfurt, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TEAG Thüringer Energie AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-319/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — GGEW v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of a ‘single concentration’ — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Period of analysis — Analysis of market power — Decisive influence — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty of diligence)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002802.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/28






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — GGEW v Commission
(Case T-319/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of a ‘single concentration’ - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Period of analysis - Analysis of market power - Decisive influence - Manifest errors of assessment - Duty of diligence)
(2023/C 235/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG.










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 20.7.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 16 May 2023 2023/C 175/03
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023175EN.01000301.xml










17.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 May 2023
(2023/C 175/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0881 




JPY


Japanese yen


147,89 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4468 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86938 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,2765 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9732 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6130 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,675 




HUF


Hungarian forint


369,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4865 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9478 




TRY


Turkish lira


21,4425 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6307 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4652 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5293 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7428 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4545 




KRW


South Korean won


1 458,78 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7496 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5793 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 132,09 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8954 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,001 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,963 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3340 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,9822 




INR


Indian rupee


89,4655 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-365/22, État belge (VAT — Vehicles sold for parts): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — IT v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Margin scheme — Article 311 — Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ — End-of-life vehicles sold for parts)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, motor vehicle, product life, used goods, vehicle parts








C_2023235EN.01000502.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/5






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — IT v État belge
(Case C-365/22, (1) État belge (VAT — Vehicles sold for parts))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Margin scheme - Article 311 - Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ - End-of-life vehicles sold for parts)
(2023/C 235/07)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IT

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive No 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,
must be interpreted as meaning that definitively end-of-life motor vehicles acquired by an undertaking from the persons referred to in Article 314 of that directive and intended to be sold ‘for parts’ without the parts having been removed are second-hand goods within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive where, first, they still include parts which maintain the functionalities that they possessed when new so that they can be reused as such or after repair and, secondly, it is established that those vehicles remained in the same economic cycle because of that reuse of parts.


(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.
Case T-267/22: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ACASA — Absolute ground for invalidity — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023235EN.01003601.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/36






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA)
(Case T-267/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ACASA - Absolute ground for invalidity - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2023/C 235/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Consulta GmbH (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mario Karlinger (Sölden, Austria) (represented by: M. Mungenast and K. Riedmüller, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 January 2022 (Case R 487/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Consulta GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
Case C-264/22, Fonds de Garantie des Victimes des Actes de Terrorisme et d’Autres Infractions: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Fonds de Garantie des Victimes des Actes de Terrorisme et d’Autres Infractions (FGTI) v Victoria Seguros SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Article 4(1) — Article 15(h) — Article 19 — Accident caused by a boat in a Member State — Compensation for the victim of that accident — Subrogation in accordance with the law of another Member State — Reimbursement requested by the third-person subrogee — Applicable law — Limitation)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of jurisdiction, damage, indemnification, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of obligations, transport accident, victim








C_2023235EN.01000501.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Fonds de Garantie des Victimes des Actes de Terrorisme et d’Autres Infractions (FGTI) v Victoria Seguros SA
(Case C-264/22, (1) Fonds de Garantie des Victimes des Actes de Terrorisme et d’Autres Infractions)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Article 4(1) - Article 15(h) - Article 19 - Accident caused by a boat in a Member State - Compensation for the victim of that accident - Subrogation in accordance with the law of another Member State - Reimbursement requested by the third-person subrogee - Applicable law - Limitation)
(2023/C 235/06)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fonds de Garantie des Victimes des Actes de Terrorisme et d’Autres Infractions (FGTI)

Defendant: Victoria Seguros SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1), Article 15(h) and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)
must be interpreted as meaning that the law which governs the action of a third party subrogated to the rights of an injured party against the person who caused the damage and which determines, in particular, the rules on limitation in respect of that action is, in principle, that of the country in which that damage occurs.


(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.
Case T-320/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Mainova v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — German electricity market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No standing to bring proceedings — No active participation — Admissibility)
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2023235EN.01002901.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/29






Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — Mainova v Commission
(Case T-320/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No standing to bring proceedings - No active participation - Admissibility)
(2023/C 235/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mainova AG (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast and H. Löschan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Haus and F. Schmidt, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019, declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Mainova AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Contracting Entity 2023/C 175/08
Date: 2023-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy, wholesale trade








C_2023175EN.01001401.xml










17.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/14






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2023/C 175/08)
On 13 April 2023, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The request has been submitted by the Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V (BDEW, German Association of Energy and Water Industries). The first working day following receipt of the request is 14 April 2023.
This request concerns activities relating to the generation and wholesale of electricity from renewable sources in Germany, with the exception of electricity from renewable sources generated in installations that went into operation before 1 August 2014 and still receive subsidies.
Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 90 (2) working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 25 August 2023.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same activities in Germany submitted before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

(2)  Pursuant to paragraph 1a of Annex IV to Directive 2014/25/EU in combination with the second subparagraph of said paragraph 1.