do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4189 — Deutsche Bank/Lone Star/Vivanco Gruppe) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, computer systems, economic concentration, electronics, merger control, private investment, service, telecommunications

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4189 — Deutsche Bank/Lone Star/Vivanco Gruppe)

(2006/C 130/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 May 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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4189. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, directory, official document

C 130/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2006/C 130/05)

Document

Part

Date

Title

COM(2006) 19

25.1.2006

COM(2006) 85

2.3.2006

COM(2006) 88

2.3.2006

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions — The Thematic Programme ‘Non-State
Actors and Local Authorities in Development’

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament: Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness
— The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 — 2010

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
Increasing the impact of EU aid: A common
pean Parliament:
framework for drafting country strategy papers and joint multi-
annual programming

COM(2006) 134

17.3.2006

Communication from the Commission: A renewed EU Tourism
Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism

COM(2006) 159

4.4.2006

Communication from the Commission: Guidance on the posting of
workers in the framework of the provision of services

COM(2006) 164

12.4.2006

Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive
79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, Part I: Composite
Report on Overall Progress Achieved Update for 1999-2001

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/
Case T-17/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 April 2006  — Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission (State aid — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Necessity of the aid)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), transport company

C 131/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreutschitz and J. Flett, agents)

Operative part of the judgment

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European
Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, F. Florindo Gijón and C.
Saile, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 12
September 2002 rejecting a complaint lodged by the applicant
on 5 July 2002.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ 2003 C 31, p. 19.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2006 —
Camós Grau v Commission

(Case T-309/03) (1)

(Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
concerning the management and funding of the Institute for
Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) — Poten-
tial conflict of interest on the part of an investigator —
Removal from the investigating body — Impact on the
conduct of the investigation and the content of the report of
the investigation — Report terminating the investigation —
Action for annulment — Admissibility — Action for
damages — Admissibility)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2006 —
Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission

(Case T-17/03) (1)

Parties

(2006/C 131/71)

Language of the case: French

(State aid — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficulty — Necessity of the aid)

Applicant: Manel Camós Grau (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

(2006/C 131/70)

Language of the case: German

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-F. Pasquier and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Parties

Applicant:
Germany) (represented by: M. Matzat, lawyer)

Schmitz-Gotha

Fahrzeugwerke GmbH (Gotha,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreuschitz and V. di Bucci, Agents)

Re:

for

annulment

Commission Decision
Application
2003/194/EC of 30 October 2002 on the State aid imple-
mented by Germany for Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH
(OJ 2003 L 77, p. 41)

of

Re:

Application, first, for the annulment of the report of the Euro-
pean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 17 October 2002 termi-
nating the investigation concerning the Institute for Europeon
for
and Latin American Relations (IRELA) and, secondly,
compensation for non-material damage and damage to the
applicant's employment prospects claimed to have arisen by
virtue of that report

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the Commission to pay Mr Camós Grau the sum of

EUR 10 000.
Case C-153/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, electrical equipment, electronic waste, national implementing measure, waste management

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/31

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council, relating to the assessment and management of
noise (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to
the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Directive:

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of
expired on 13 August 2004.

the directive

(1) OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 19.

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 18 July 2004.

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

(1) OJ L 189, p. 12

(Case C-153/06)

(2006/C 131/58)

Language of the case: Swedish

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

Parties

(Case C-152/06)

(2006/C 131/57)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/95/EC
of
the Council of 27
January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazar-
dous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1) or
in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/96/EC
of
the Council of 27
January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) (1) or in any case by failing to inform the Commis-
sion thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of
expired on 13 August 2004.

the directive

(1) OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 24.
Case T-344/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 April 2006  — Saiwa v OHMI (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative mark including the word element  SELEZIONE ORO Barilla  — Opposition — Earlier word marks ORO and ORO SAIWA — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Opposition rejected)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pasta, trade-mark law

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/39

2. Dismisses the remainder of the claims.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Commission to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 —
Madaus v OHIM

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 —
Saiwa v OHMI

(Case T-202/04) (1)

(Case T-344/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a figurative mark
including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ —
Opposition — Earlier word marks ORO and ORO SAIWA
— Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 — Opposition rejected)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Previous international word mark ECHINACIN — Applica-
tion for Community word mark ECHINAID — Relative
grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94)

(2006/C 131/73)

Language of the case: English

(2006/C 131/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saiwa SpA (Genoa Italy) (represented by: G. Sena, P.
Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty and M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M. Capos-
tagno and O. Montalto, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM,
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Barilla
Alimentare SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti and
S. Bergia, lawyers)

Applicant: Madaus AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I.
Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves,
agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Optima Healthcare Ltd (Cardiff, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2004 (Case R 714/2002-2)
concerning the opposition proceedings between Madaus AG
and Optima Healthcare Ltd

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 18 July 2003 (R 480/2002-4) concerning opposition
proceedings between Saiwa SpA and Barilla Alimentare SpA

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004
Case T-93/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Mülhens v OHIM
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/43

Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Mülhens v OHIM

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

(Case T-93/06)

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94.

(2006/C 131/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Federaction de
Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v Com-
munity Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany)
(represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

(Case T-95/06)

(2006/C 131/81)

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

Language of the case: Spanish

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.A. Spa
Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa (Spa, Belgium)

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the

defendant of 11 January 2006 (Case No 2746/2004);

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Applicant: Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comu-
nidad Valenciana (Valencia, Spain)
(represented by S. Roig
Girbes, R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mülhens GmbH &
Co. KG

— Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Com-

munity Plant Variety Office of 8 November 2005;

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark 'MINERAL SPA'
for goods in class 3 (soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, prepara-
tions for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, denti-
frices)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de SPA

— order the Community Plant Variety Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

for Community plant variety rights:

Jean de Maistre,
Applicant
following the transfer of the variety at issue, SARL Nador Cott
Protection (Application No 1995/0726).

Mark or sign cited: several trade marks containing the word
'SPA' and, in particular, the Benelux word trade mark 'SPA' for
goods in class 32

Community plant variety right sought by: Nadorcott

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application
for registration of the mark

Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted
(Decision No 14111).
Case C-136/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Malta, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, electrical equipment, electronic waste, national implementing measure, waste management

C 131/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

The Commission maintains that the above-mentioned agree-
ments delegating the supply of services in question constitute
public service contracts which were awarded directly, without
recourse to any form of tendering procedure, and thus in
breach of Community law on public contracts.

(1) OJ L 209 of 24/07/1992, p. 1.

(Case C-137/06)

(2006/C 131/55)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-136/06)

(2006/C 131/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise (1) or, in any event, by
failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that
Directive.

Parties

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 18 July 2004.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) OJ L 189, p. 12

— 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 on Waste Electrical and Elec-
tronic Equipment (1) 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 them to the Commission, Malta has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1) OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 24
(2) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 106

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

(Case C-138/06)

(2006/C 131/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4254 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/Dangaard) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, merger control, telecommunications

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/5

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4254 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/Dangaard)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 130/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 24 May 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 Nordic Capital Fund VI
(‘Nordic Capital’; Jersey) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of
the whole of the undertaking Dangaard Telecom Holding A/S (‘Dangaard’, Denmark) by way of purchase
of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Nordic Capital: private equity investments, predominantly in the Nordic region;

— for Dangaard: wholesale of

telecommunications equipment and accessories,

in particular mobile

phones.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the
3.
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.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
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.4254 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/Dangaard, 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.
Case T-202/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 April 2006  — Madaus v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Previous international word mark ECHINACIN — Application for Community word mark ECHINAID — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), food supplement, pharmaceutical product, trade-mark law

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/39

2. Dismisses the remainder of the claims.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Commission to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 —
Madaus v OHIM

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 —
Saiwa v OHMI

(Case T-202/04) (1)

(Case T-344/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a figurative mark
including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ —
Opposition — Earlier word marks ORO and ORO SAIWA
— Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 — Opposition rejected)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Previous international word mark ECHINACIN — Applica-
tion for Community word mark ECHINAID — Relative
grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94)

(2006/C 131/73)

Language of the case: English

(2006/C 131/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saiwa SpA (Genoa Italy) (represented by: G. Sena, P.
Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty and M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M. Capos-
tagno and O. Montalto, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM,
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Barilla
Alimentare SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti and
S. Bergia, lawyers)

Applicant: Madaus AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I.
Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves,
agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Optima Healthcare Ltd (Cardiff, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2004 (Case R 714/2002-2)
concerning the opposition proceedings between Madaus AG
and Optima Healthcare Ltd

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 18 July 2003 (R 480/2002-4) concerning opposition
proceedings between Saiwa SpA and Barilla Alimentare SpA

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004