# Official Journal C 33/9 Fe

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 499 February 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 499 February 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 033/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 033/2 | Extract of reorganisation measure decided on pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions. | 2 |
| 2006/C 033/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2006/C 033/4 | New national side of euro circulation coins | 5 |
| 2006/C 033/5 | New national side of euro circulation coins | 6 |
| 2006/C 033/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4128 — Adecco/Deutscher Industrie Service) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2006/C 033/7 | Planned closure of complaint 2004/5008 | 8 |
| 2006/C 033/8 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4028 — Flaga/Progas/JV) (
  1
  ) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 033/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 033/2

Extract of reorganisation measure decided on pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions.

2

2006/C 033/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2006/C 033/4

New national side of euro circulation coins

5

2006/C 033/5

New national side of euro circulation coins

6

2006/C 033/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4128 — Adecco/Deutscher Industrie Service) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

2006/C 033/7

Planned closure of complaint 2004/5008

8

2006/C 033/8

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4028 — Flaga/Progas/JV) (
  1
  )

1

9

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 February 2006

(2006/C 33/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1948 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4667 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2713 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5529 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,97 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0165 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5742 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,473 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,29 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8225 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5820 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,650 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5950 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6195 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3808 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2740 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7669 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9518 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 161,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4712 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6235 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3502 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 069,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,461 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,843 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,7940 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,491 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1948

JPY

Japanese yen

141,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4667

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68610

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2713

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5529

ISK

Iceland króna

74,97

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0165

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5742

CZK

Czech koruna

28,473

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,29

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8225

RON

Romanian leu

3,5820

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,49

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,650

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5950

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6195

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3808

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2740

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7669

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9518

KRW

South Korean won

1 161,05

ZAR

South African rand

7,4712

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6235

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3502

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 069,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,461

PHP

Philippine peso

61,843

RUB

Russian rouble

33,7940

THB

Thai baht

47,491

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/2

---

Extract of reorganisation measure decided on pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions.

(2006/C 33/02)

ALMELO COURT OF LAW

Case No: 71661 HA RK 05.45

Date of ruling: 16 June 2005

Ruling of Almelo Court, civil division, at the request of

the limited company

De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.,

registered in Amsterdam,

petitioner,

hereafter known as DNB,

Procurator litis: E.M.M. van de Loo

Lawyer: D.A. van der Stelt, Amsterdam

versus

the private limited company

Geregelde Zaken Holding B.V.,

registered in Hengelo (Overijssel),

with offices at 7500 AC Enschede, Neptunusstraat 15a,

hereafter known as GZH,

respondent,

Procurator litis: E.M.M. van de Loo

Lawyer: A.C. van Campen, Arnhem

Proceedings

By letter dated 13 June 2005, DNB petitioned the court to rule, with immediate effect, that GZH is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors and to appoint J.A.D.M. Daniëls, procurator litis and lawyer of Almelo, as administrator and a member of the court as delegated judge, along with an order regarding the duration of the remedy as the court deems appropriate. DNB also requests that, if the petition is upheld, the time of the order be specified to the minute and a summary of the order be published by the administrator or the court's bailiff in the Dutch Government Gazette, the Official Journal of the European Union and two Dutch newspapers to be specified by the court. Both parties submitted evidence prior to processing of the petition. The hearing took place on 15 June 2005. GZH was represented by Mrs B. Muller-de Graaf, assisted by Mr Van Campen. DNB was represented by J.W.E. Nagtegaal, an employee of DNB, assisted by Mr Van der Stelt.

Adjudication of the dispute and grounds for the ruling

| 1. | The petition is based on Section 71(2) of the Wet Toezicht Kredietwezen [Act on the supervision of the banking industry] (WTK). The provisions of Section 71(2) empower the court, at the request of DNB, to declare that, if the solvency or liquidity of a credit institution subject to the prohibition contained in Section 6 of that Act is such that DNB is of the opinion that the credit institution cannot, or cannot fully, meet its obligations in respect of the monies obtained by it, the credit institution is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors. DNB states that, where GZH is concerned, a situation as referred to in Section 71(2) of the WTK exists and a special remedy is required. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The petition is based on Section 71(2) of the Wet Toezicht Kredietwezen [Act on the supervision of the banking industry] (WTK). The provisions of Section 71(2) empower the court, at the request of DNB, to declare that, if the solvency or liquidity of a credit institution subject to the prohibition contained in Section 6 of that Act is such that DNB is of the opinion that the credit institution cannot, or cannot fully, meet its obligations in respect of the monies obtained by it, the credit institution is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors. DNB states that, where GZH is concerned, a situation as referred to in Section 71(2) of the WTK exists and a special remedy is required.

| 2. | DNB claims that GZH is a company or institution the business of which is to obtain accounts payable, whether or not on the due date, and to extend credit and/or make investments for its own account. The company is therefore a credit institution within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the WTK. Such an institution is prohibited from carrying on the business of credit institution unless it has received a licence for that purpose from DNB, been granted exemption from that prohibition by the Minister for Finance or been given a dispensation from that prohibition by DNB. DNB claims that no such licence or dispensation has been granted to GZH. GZH did not contest in court that it is a credit institution within the meaning of the Act. It declared that it based itself on information obtained from the Autoriteit Financiële Markten [Financial Markets Authority] (AFM). As the AFM did not refer it to DNB for a licence or dispensation, it was therefore acting in good faith. However, that does not detract from the fact that GZH has acted and is acting in contravention of Section 1(1) of the WTK. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DNB claims that GZH is a company or institution the business of which is to obtain accounts payable, whether or not on the due date, and to extend credit and/or make investments for its own account. The company is therefore a credit institution within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the WTK. Such an institution is prohibited from carrying on the business of credit institution unless it has received a licence for that purpose from DNB, been granted exemption from that prohibition by the Minister for Finance or been given a dispensation from that prohibition by DNB. DNB claims that no such licence or dispensation has been granted to GZH. GZH did not contest in court that it is a credit institution within the meaning of the Act. It declared that it based itself on information obtained from the Autoriteit Financiële Markten [Financial Markets Authority] (AFM). As the AFM did not refer it to DNB for a licence or dispensation, it was therefore acting in good faith. However, that does not detract from the fact that GZH has acted and is acting in contravention of Section 1(1) of the WTK.

| 3. | Research by DNB's enforcement division revealed that GZH did not satisfy the requirements as to liquidity and solvency. The research was based on figures supplied by GZH. The figures were provisional and unaudited and did not take account of any tax aspects. It was found that, by means of interest guarantee certificates, GZH had concluded agreements whereby lenders invested various amounts of money at a fixed yield of between 7 % and 9 % per annum. In total, GZH had received monies amounting to at least EUR 2 033 574,70. Part of that money had been put out in the form of loans and used to make the monthly interest repayments on the guarantee certificates. There were also investments in property and a loan of EUR 980 533,03 was granted to Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. GZH is the sole shareholder in Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. DNB claimed that GZH's liquidity was insufficient to cover the repayment obligation arising from the interest guarantee certificates. That obligation amounts to EUR 2 158 574,70. GZH has EUR 424 159,10 immediately available. There is therefore a short-term shortfall of EUR 1 734 415,60. Key to the ability to cover the repayment obligation is the value placed on the current account claims on Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. GZH stated in court that the money it lent to Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V cannot be repaid to GZH in the short term.
  The medium-term shortfall is EUR 1 605 848,60, the long-term shortfall EUR 320 368,10.
  As far as solvency is concerned, the research showed that equity, which consists solely of paid-up share capital less losses incurred, is a negative figure, EUR 67 399,54. By DNB's criteria, that negative equity cannot produce adequate solvency. The equity will be below any standard in DNB's solvency guidelines as applicable to credit institutions. DNB believes that application of the emergency arrangements is a way to safeguard the interests of creditors and arrive at the most prudent possible settlement of their claims. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Research by DNB's enforcement division revealed that GZH did not satisfy the requirements as to liquidity and solvency. The research was based on figures supplied by GZH. The figures were provisional and unaudited and did not take account of any tax aspects. It was found that, by means of interest guarantee certificates, GZH had concluded agreements whereby lenders invested various amounts of money at a fixed yield of between 7 % and 9 % per annum. In total, GZH had received monies amounting to at least EUR 2 033 574,70. Part of that money had been put out in the form of loans and used to make the monthly interest repayments on the guarantee certificates. There were also investments in property and a loan of EUR 980 533,03 was granted to Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. GZH is the sole shareholder in Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. DNB claimed that GZH's liquidity was insufficient to cover the repayment obligation arising from the interest guarantee certificates. That obligation amounts to EUR 2 158 574,70. GZH has EUR 424 159,10 immediately available. There is therefore a short-term shortfall of EUR 1 734 415,60. Key to the ability to cover the repayment obligation is the value placed on the current account claims on Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V. GZH stated in court that the money it lent to Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V cannot be repaid to GZH in the short term.

The medium-term shortfall is EUR 1 605 848,60, the long-term shortfall EUR 320 368,10.

As far as solvency is concerned, the research showed that equity, which consists solely of paid-up share capital less losses incurred, is a negative figure, EUR 67 399,54. By DNB's criteria, that negative equity cannot produce adequate solvency. The equity will be below any standard in DNB's solvency guidelines as applicable to credit institutions. DNB believes that application of the emergency arrangements is a way to safeguard the interests of creditors and arrive at the most prudent possible settlement of their claims.

| 4. | In court GZH unconvincingly argued that it did not satisfy the solvency and liquidity requirements set. Although it did demonstrate that DNB, in the form of its enforcement division, did not take into account all the financial information and potential revenue that was made available, its explanation did reveal that the amounts involved were not substantial enough to lower the value assigned to DNB's calculations. The court then ruled that it had been adequately demonstrated that GZH's solvency and liquidity were such as to permit the conclusion that it was in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In court GZH unconvincingly argued that it did not satisfy the solvency and liquidity requirements set. Although it did demonstrate that DNB, in the form of its enforcement division, did not take into account all the financial information and potential revenue that was made available, its explanation did reveal that the amounts involved were not substantial enough to lower the value assigned to DNB's calculations. The court then ruled that it had been adequately demonstrated that GZH's solvency and liquidity were such as to permit the conclusion that it was in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors.

| 5. | In court GZH also claimed that application of the emergency arrangements with the concomitant public announcements would have an adverse effect on GZH and Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V and that the effect would be to damage precisely those interests that DNB was trying to protect. The court concluded that the publicity generated in this case could not stand in the way of application of the emergency arrangements. Whether deliberately or not, GZH had breached the provisions of the WTK and created a situation of inadequate solvency and liquidity. That necessitates intervention. The fact that this will or could lead to publicity does not make intervention unnecessary or unwanted. GZH also noted that DNB has the opportunity to appoint a ‘stille curator’ [a silent administrator]. That does not require the court's approval nor does it have to be publicised. However, DNB did not opt for that solution and GZH did not request beforehand the appointment of a silent administrator. The court will therefore ignore this defence. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In court GZH also claimed that application of the emergency arrangements with the concomitant public announcements would have an adverse effect on GZH and Muller & De Graaf Financieel Advies B.V and that the effect would be to damage precisely those interests that DNB was trying to protect. The court concluded that the publicity generated in this case could not stand in the way of application of the emergency arrangements. Whether deliberately or not, GZH had breached the provisions of the WTK and created a situation of inadequate solvency and liquidity. That necessitates intervention. The fact that this will or could lead to publicity does not make intervention unnecessary or unwanted. GZH also noted that DNB has the opportunity to appoint a ‘stille curator’ [a silent administrator]. That does not require the court's approval nor does it have to be publicised. However, DNB did not opt for that solution and GZH did not request beforehand the appointment of a silent administrator. The court will therefore ignore this defence.

| 6. | In light of the above, the court rules that GZH is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors. It will therefore appoint an administrator. DNB has, under Section 71(7) of the WTK, requested the appointment of J.A.D.M. Daniëls (of Daniëls, Dijkman & Huisman, lawyers, of Almelo), business address: Ootmarsumsestraat 72, 7602 JR Almelo, Nederland (postal address: PO Box 31, 7600 AA Almelo, Nederland) as administrator. The court concurred. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In light of the above, the court rules that GZH is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors. It will therefore appoint an administrator. DNB has, under Section 71(7) of the WTK, requested the appointment of J.A.D.M. Daniëls (of Daniëls, Dijkman & Huisman, lawyers, of Almelo), business address: Ootmarsumsestraat 72, 7602 JR Almelo, Nederland (postal address: PO Box 31, 7600 AA Almelo, Nederland) as administrator. The court concurred.

| 7. | The court will set the duration of the remedy at eighteen months, stipulating that it will run until 16 December 2006. The remedy can, if required, be prolonged pursuant to Section 71(15) of the WTK. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The court will set the duration of the remedy at eighteen months, stipulating that it will run until 16 December 2006. The remedy can, if required, be prolonged pursuant to Section 71(15) of the WTK.

Ruling

The court

| I. | declares that Geregelde Zaken Holding B.V. is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors; |
| --- | --- |

I.

declares that Geregelde Zaken Holding B.V. is in a situation requiring a special remedy in the interests of the joint creditors;

| II. | appoints as delegated judge member of the court A.E. Zweers and as administrator J.A.D.M. Daniëls, procurator litis and lawyer at Almelo; |
| --- | --- |

II.

appoints as delegated judge member of the court A.E. Zweers and as administrator J.A.D.M. Daniëls, procurator litis and lawyer at Almelo;

| III. | stipulates that the remedy shall be in force until 16 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

III.

stipulates that the remedy shall be in force until 16 December 2006;

| IV. | stipulates that the administrator shall without delay publish the announcement prescribed by Section 71(8) of the WTK in the following publications: the Dutch Government Gazette, the Official Journal of the European Union, the Twentsche Courant Tubantia and NRC-Handelsblad; |
| --- | --- |

IV.

stipulates that the administrator shall without delay publish the announcement prescribed by Section 71(8) of the WTK in the following publications: the Dutch Government Gazette, the Official Journal of the European Union, the Twentsche Courant Tubantia and NRC-Handelsblad;

| V. | declares that this ruling be executable with immediate effect, retroactive to the beginning of the day of pronouncement. |
| --- | --- |

V.

declares that this ruling be executable with immediate effect, retroactive to the beginning of the day of pronouncement.

Done at Almelo and pronounced in open court on 16 June 2005 at 14.00 by K.J. Haarhuis in the presence of the Registrar. Signed for the court and by the Registrar.

Issued as copy/photocopy on 16 June 2006.

Registrar of Almelo Court

Civil Division

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 33/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 1 February 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking Partners III L.P. (‘Lehman Brothers’, USA) belonging to the Lehman Brothers Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the European seafood business of HJ Heinz Company (‘Heinz’, USA) by way of purchase of shares and assets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 1 February 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking Partners III L.P. (‘Lehman Brothers’, USA) belonging to the Lehman Brothers Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the European seafood business of HJ Heinz Company (‘Heinz’, USA) by way of purchase of shares and assets.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Lehman Brothers: investment fund; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Lehman Brothers: investment fund;

| — | for Heinz: fishing, processing and distributing of seafood products. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Heinz: fishing, processing and distributing of seafood products.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under 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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M. 4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M. 4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/5

---

New national side of euro circulation coins

(2006/C 33/04)

Image

Euro circulation coins have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (1) with a view to informing anyone required to handle coins in the course of their work and the public at large. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 8 December 2003 (2), Member States and countries that have concluded a Monetary Agreement with the Community providing for the issuance of euro circulation coins are allowed to issue certain quantities of commemorative euro circulation coins on condition that not more than one new coin design is issued per country per year and that only the 2 EUR denomination is used. These coins have the technical features of normal euro circulation coins, but bear a commemorative design on the obverse national side.

Issuing State: Germany

Subject of commemoration: Schleswig-Holstein

Factual description of the design: The inner part of the coin shows a representation of the ‘Holstentor’, the landmark gate of the town of Lübeck. The word ‘Schleswig-Holstein’ appears underneath the gate at the bottom of the inner part. The engraver's initials ‘HH’ are depicted on the right hand side of the design. One of the letters ‘A’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘G’ or ‘J’ appears as the mintmark on the left hand side of the design. Twelve stars form a semicircle on the upper part of the outer ring, interrupted by the year of mintage ‘2006’ at the top of the coin. The words ‘Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ form a semicircle on the lower part of the outer ring.

Issue volume: 30 million coins

Approximate issue period: February 2006

Edge lettering: ‘Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit’ and the federal eagle

---

(1)  See OJ C 373 of 28.12.2001, p. 1-30 for a reference to all national sides that were issued in 2002.

(2)  See conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 8 December 2003 on changes in the design of national sides of euro coins. See also Commission Recommendation of 29 September 2003 on a common practice for changes to the design of national obverse sides of euro circulation coins (OJ L 264 of 15.10.2003, p. 38-39).

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/6

---

New national side of euro circulation coins

(2006/C 33/05)

Image

Euro circulation coins have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (1) with a view to informing anyone required to handle coins in the course of their work and the public at large. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 8 December 2003 (2), Member States and countries that have concluded a Monetary Agreement with the Community providing for the issuance of euro circulation coins are allowed to issue certain quantities of commemorative euro circulation coins on condition that not more than one new coin design is issued per country per year and that only the EUR 2 denomination is used. These coins have the technical features of normal euro circulation coins, but bear a commemorative design on the obverse national side.

Member State: Italian Republic

Subject of commemoration: XX Olympic Winter Games — Turin 2006.

Factual description of the design: the foreground shows a skier racing, against a background of stylised graphic elements: the monogram of the Italian Republic ‘RI’ at the top left, below it the letter ‘R’ and an image of Turin's landmark Mole Antonelliana building with the inscription ‘TORINO’ below; the words ‘GIOCHI INVERNALI’ at the top right; to the right of the skier, the year of issue, 2006, written vertically, and the initials of the designer, Maria Carmela Colaneri, MCC. The twelve stars of the European Union encircle the design.

Issue volume: 40 million coins

Approximate issue period: January — February 2006

Edge lettering: 2 *, repeated six times, alternately upright and inverted

---

(1)  See OJ C 373 of 28.12.2001, p. 1 for a reference to all national sides that have been issued so far.

(2)  See conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 8 December 2003 on changes in the design of national sides of euro coins. See also Commission Recommendation of 29 September 2003 on a common practice for changes to the design of national obverse sides of euro circulation coins (OJ L 264 of 15.10.2003, p. 38).

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4128 — Adecco/Deutscher Industrie Service)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 33/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 2 February 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Adecco SA (‘Adecco’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Deutscher Industrie Service AG (‘DIS’, Germany) by way of public bid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 2 February 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Adecco SA (‘Adecco’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Deutscher Industrie Service AG (‘DIS’, Germany) by way of public bid.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Adecco: provision of human resources and staffing services on a global scale, including temporary employment services; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Adecco: provision of human resources and staffing services on a global scale, including temporary employment services;

| — | for DIS: provision of employment services, including temporary employment, to companies in Germany and Austria. |
| --- | --- |

—

for DIS: provision of employment services, including temporary employment, to companies in Germany and Austria.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under 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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4128 — Adecco/Deutscher Industrie Service, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4128 — Adecco/Deutscher Industrie Service, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/8

---

Planned closure of complaint 2004/5008

(2006/C 33/07)

‘The Commission services have completed their investigation of mass complaint case 2004/5008 (concerning a planned housing construction in Hamburg, Germany). A letter detailing the results of the assessment has been published in German on the internet:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/lexcomm/multiple_complaints/doc/20045008de.pdf’.

---

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4028 — Flaga/Progas/JV)

(2006/C 33/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/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 under document number 32006M4028. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4028. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---