do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4181 — Blackstone/Center Parcs (UK) Group) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment bank, merger control, tourism

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4181 — Blackstone/Center Parcs (UK) Group)

(2006/C 107/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 April 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 web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
web site 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 32006M4181. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4152 — Jacobs Holding/Adecco)

(2006/C 107/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 April 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 web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
web site 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 32006M4152. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4152 — Jacobs Holding/Adecco) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, temporary employment agency

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4181 — Blackstone/Center Parcs (UK) Group)

(2006/C 107/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 April 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 web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
web site 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 32006M4181. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4152 — Jacobs Holding/Adecco)

(2006/C 107/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 April 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 web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
web site 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 32006M4152. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)
Case T-289/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 March 2006  — Lantzoni v Court of Justice (Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points — Link to the staff report)
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action by staff, promotion, staff assessment

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/21

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006 —
Service Station Veger v Commission

(Case T-238/99) (1)

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(Application initiating proceedings — Procedural require-
ments — Action manifestly inadmissible)

(1) OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004

(2006/C 108/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006
— Lantzoni v Court of Justice

(Case T-289/04) (1)

Parties

Applicant: Service station V/H J.P. Veger (Maria Hoop, the Neth-
erlands) (represented by: P. Brouwers, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and H. Speyart initially, then G. Rozet and
H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

(Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points —
Link to the staff report)

Re:

(2006/C 108/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dimitra Lantzoni
initially and then by M. Bouche, lawyers)

(represented by: C. Marhuenda

Defendant: Court of
(represented by: M. Schauss, agent)

Justice of

the European Communities

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing
authority of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
of 7 October 2003 concerning the promotion points awarded
to the applicant under the 1999-2000 procedure and the 2001
procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it relates to
the award of promotion points for the 1999-2000 procedure;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by
the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the
German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)

of

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006
Commission v Trends and Others

(Case T-448/04) (1)

(Arbitration clause — Plea of inadmissibility — Action
against the partners of a company)

(2006/C 108/39)

Language of the case: Greek

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

Parties:

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Bra, K.
Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)
Case C-140/06: Action brought on  14 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, action programme, dissemination of information, evaluation method, national implementing measure, noise, noise protection, nuisance

C 108/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

Action brought on 14 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-139/06)

(2006/C 108/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-140/06)

(2006/C 108/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis et D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
following Directives of the European Parliament and of the
Council, namely, 2002/96/EC (1) on Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment and 2003/108/EC of 8 December
2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical
and electronic equipment (2), or in any event by failing to
communicate
the United
them to the Commission,
Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Direc-
tive;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which te directives had to be transposed
expired on 13 August 2004.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Walker and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative
measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June
2002 relating to the assessment and management of envir-
onmental noise (1), or in any event by not communicating
such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 14(1) of that
directive

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementation of the directive in
domestic law expired on 18 July 2004.

(1) OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12

Action brought on 20 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-151/06)

(2006/C 108/24)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ L 37, 13/02/2003, P. 24-39
(2) OJ L 345, 13/12/2003 P. 106-107

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/3

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 May 2006

(2006/C 107/02)

1 euro =

Currency

Exchange rate

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CYP

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

LVL

MTL

PLN

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Norwegian krone

Bulgarian lev

Cyprus pound

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

RON

Romanian leu

1,2688

144,51

7,4570

0,68680

9,3220

1,5615

91,18

7,7670

1,9558

0,5752

28,292

15,6466

259,80

3,4528

0,6960

0,4293

3,8149

3,4689

SIT

SKK

TRY

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

AUD Australian dollar

CAD

HKD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

NZD New Zealand dollar

SGD

Singapore dollar

239,62

37,310

1,6745

1,6482

1,4063

9,8362

1,9807

2,0001

KRW South Korean won

1 192,16

ZAR

CNY

HRK

IDR

South African rand

Chinese yuan renminbi

Croatian kuna

7,6782

10,1713

7,2750

Indonesian rupiah

11 152,75

MYR Malaysian ringgit

PHP

RUB

THB

Philippine peso

Russian rouble

Thai baht

4,575

65,508

34,4120

48,037

(1) Source:

reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-411/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Herbillon v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrator, appointment of staff

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/17

2) Dismisses the remainder of the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the

3) Orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay
four fifths of
the costs incurred by the Commission and the
Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth
of the costs incurred by the applicant.

(1) OJ C 97, 30.4.2002

intervener;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ 2003 C 6, of 8.1.2005

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2006
— Telefon & Buch v OHIM

(Case T-322/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Admissibility of the action —
Unforeseeable circumstances — Application for a declaration
of invalidity — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
— Word mark WEISSE SEITEN — Absolute grounds for
refusal — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006
— Herbillon v Commission

(Case T-411/03) (1)

(Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification
in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

(2006/C 108/28)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 108/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties:

Applicant: Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (Salzburg,
Austria) (represented by: H. Zeiner and M. Baldares del Barco,
lawyers)

Applicant: Georges Herbillon (Arlon, Belgium) (represented by:
N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Herold Busi-
ness Data GmbH & Co.KG (Mödling, Austria) (represented by:
A. Lensing-Kramer, C. von Nussbaum and U.Reese, lawyers)

Application for, firstly, annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 20 December 2002, setting the applicant's final classifi-
cation at Grade A7, step 3, and, secondly, annulment of the
Commission's decision of 29 July 2003, rejecting the appli-
cant's complaint.

Action

Operative part of the judgment

brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 19 June 2003 (Joined Cases R 580/2001-1 and R
592/2001-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Herold
Business Data AG and Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft
mbH,

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.
Case T -96/06: Action brought on  17 March 2006  — Tsakiris-Mallas A.E. v OHIM
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tsakiris-Mallas A.E.

the word mark ‘Tomorrow
Community trade mark concerned:
Focus’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and
42 (application No 2382455)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Information Builders (Netherlands) B.V.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Focus’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (Community trade
mark No 68585)

Decision of the Opposition Division: grant of the opposition and
rejection of the application in respect of classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested deci-
sion, rejection of the application for certain goods and services
in Classes 9 and 42 and rejection of the remainder of the oppo-
sition

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) on the ground that it was incorrectly held that
there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks
compared.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark exë for goods
in Classes 18 and 25 — Application No 2 190 015

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Late Editions Limited

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark EXE for goods in
Class 25

Decision of
some of the goods

the Opposition Division: Opposition accepted for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber of 15
March 2006 — Aries Meca v Commission

(Case T -275/04) (1)

(2006/C 108/53)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

Action brought on 17 March 2006 — Tsakiris-Mallas A.E.
v OHIM

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

(Case T -96/06)

(2006/C 108/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas A.E.
(represented by: Kharalambos Samaras, lawyer)

(Aryiroupoli, Attica, Greece)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Late Editions Limited (Leighton Buzzard, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2006 —
Success-Marketing v OHIM

(Case T -506/04) (1)

(2006/C 108/54)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

— Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal

of 11 January 2006 in Case R 1127/2004-2.

(1) OJ C 193 6.8.2005.
Case C-139/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, electrical equipment, electronic waste, financing, national implementing measure, waste management

C 108/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

Action brought on 14 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-139/06)

(2006/C 108/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-140/06)

(2006/C 108/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis et D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
following Directives of the European Parliament and of the
Council, namely, 2002/96/EC (1) on Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment and 2003/108/EC of 8 December
2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical
and electronic equipment (2), or in any event by failing to
communicate
the United
them to the Commission,
Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Direc-
tive;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which te directives had to be transposed
expired on 13 August 2004.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Walker and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative
measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June
2002 relating to the assessment and management of envir-
onmental noise (1), or in any event by not communicating
such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 14(1) of that
directive

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementation of the directive in
domestic law expired on 18 July 2004.

(1) OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12

Action brought on 20 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-151/06)

(2006/C 108/24)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ L 37, 13/02/2003, P. 24-39
(2) OJ L 345, 13/12/2003 P. 106-107

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
Case T-238/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 March 2006  — Service Station Veger v Commission (Application initiating proceedings — Procedural requirements — Action manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, Netherlands, State aid, action for annulment (EU), distributive trades, frontier region, petrol

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/21

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006 —
Service Station Veger v Commission

(Case T-238/99) (1)

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(Application initiating proceedings — Procedural require-
ments — Action manifestly inadmissible)

(1) OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004

(2006/C 108/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006
— Lantzoni v Court of Justice

(Case T-289/04) (1)

Parties

Applicant: Service station V/H J.P. Veger (Maria Hoop, the Neth-
erlands) (represented by: P. Brouwers, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and H. Speyart initially, then G. Rozet and
H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

(Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points —
Link to the staff report)

Re:

(2006/C 108/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dimitra Lantzoni
initially and then by M. Bouche, lawyers)

(represented by: C. Marhuenda

Defendant: Court of
(represented by: M. Schauss, agent)

Justice of

the European Communities

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing
authority of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
of 7 October 2003 concerning the promotion points awarded
to the applicant under the 1999-2000 procedure and the 2001
procedure

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it relates to
the award of promotion points for the 1999-2000 procedure;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by
the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the
German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)

of

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006
Commission v Trends and Others

(Case T-448/04) (1)

(Arbitration clause — Plea of inadmissibility — Action
against the partners of a company)

(2006/C 108/39)

Language of the case: Greek

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

Parties:

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Bra, K.
Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)
Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, directory, drafting of EU law, official document, proposal (EU)

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/7

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMISSION

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2006/C 107/07)

Document

Part

Date

Title

COM(2004) 774

6.12.2004

Proposal for a Council decision amending Decisions 2001/507/EC
and 2001/509/EC with a view to making UN/ECE Regulations 109
and 108 on retreaded tyres compulsory

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/