do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/25

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut)

(2006/C 248/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4363. EUR-Lex is the on-

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios)

(2006/C 248/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4339. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4317 — Aviva/De Agostini/Sopaf/Bipielle Net) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, banking, credit institution, economic concentration, mass media, merger control, publishing, restrictive-practice authorisation, undisclosed partnership

C 248/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4382 — TPG/Aleris)

(2006/C 248/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4382. EUR-Lex is the on-

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4317 — Aviva/De Agostini/Sopaf/Bipielle Net)

(2006/C 248/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 September 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 Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Italian 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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4317. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, reinsurance, restrictive-practice authorisation

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/25

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4363 — Yum/Pizza Hut)

(2006/C 248/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4363. EUR-Lex is the on-

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios)

(2006/C 248/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4339. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4386 — Cinven/Aero Invest) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, private investment, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 248/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4357 — Bridgepoint/Dorna)

(2006/C 248/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4357. EUR-Lex is the on-

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4386 — Cinven/Aero Invest)

(2006/C 248/17)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 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 Regu-
lation (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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4386. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
Case C-451/04: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid to refugees, human rights, rights of aliens

C 249/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxem-
bourg

(Case C-364/06)

(2006/C 249/17)

Language of the case: French

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2006 —
the European Communities v French
Commission of

Republic

(Case C-451/04) (1)

(2006/C 249/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

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

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Forms of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the
working time of persons performing mobile road transport
activities (1), or in any event by failing to communicate
them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/15/EC
into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2006 —
the European Communities v Italian
Commission of

Republic

(Case C-185/05) (1)

(2006/C 249/20)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) JO 2002 L 80, p. 35.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court
of 25 January 2006 — European Agency for Reconstruc-
tion (EAR) v Norbert Schmitt

Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-426/04 P) (1)

(2006/C 249/18)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-22/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/21)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.
Case C-106/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, common transport policy, disclosure of information, report, substitute fuel

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/9

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-41/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/22)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-106/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/24)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.

(1) OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-105/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/23)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo
Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

(Case C-170/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/25)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.
Case C-170/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: international convention, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/9

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-41/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/22)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-106/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/24)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.

(1) OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-105/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/23)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo
Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

(Case C-170/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/25)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4303 — Thales/Finmeccanica/AAS and Telespazio) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, information system, merger control, satellite, technology

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/23

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4303 — Thales/Finmeccanica/AAS and Telespazio)

(2006/C 248/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 6 October 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 Thales S.A. (‘Thales’,
France) and Finmeccanica Societa per Azioni (‘Finmeccanica’, Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article
3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertakings Alcatel Alenia Space SAS (‘AAS’, France)
and Telespazio Holding srl (‘Telespazio’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares in two existing joint ventures
to which additional assets are contributed.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Thales: critical information systems for defense, aerospace, transport and civil security applications;

— for Finmeccanica: diversified engineering group active in aerospace, defense systems, energy, communi-

cations, transportation and automation;

— for AAS: design, manufacture and supply of ground and space systems, including satellites and subsys-

tems and equipments;

— for Telespazio: provision of services and end-user applications using or related to satellite-based solu-

tions.

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.

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 (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post,
under reference number COMP/M.4303 — Thales/Finmeccanica/AAS and Telespazio, to the following
address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-185/05: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, accident prevention, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, exchange of information, industrial hazard, infringement of EU law, management audit, safety standard

C 249/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxem-
bourg

(Case C-364/06)

(2006/C 249/17)

Language of the case: French

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2006 —
the European Communities v French
Commission of

Republic

(Case C-451/04) (1)

(2006/C 249/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

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

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Forms of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the
working time of persons performing mobile road transport
activities (1), or in any event by failing to communicate
them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/15/EC
into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2006 —
the European Communities v Italian
Commission of

Republic

(Case C-185/05) (1)

(2006/C 249/20)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) JO 2002 L 80, p. 35.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court
of 25 January 2006 — European Agency for Reconstruc-
tion (EAR) v Norbert Schmitt

Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-426/04 P) (1)

(2006/C 249/18)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-22/06) (1)

(2006/C 249/21)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.
Case F-99/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Lopez Teruel v OHIM
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, European official, absenteeism, action by staff, duties of civil servants, sick leave

C 249/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Lopez Teruel v
OHIM

(Case F-99/06)

(2006/C 249/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adelaida Lopez Teruel (El Casar, Spain) (represented
by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of 20
October 2005 taken in response to the opinion of the inde-
pendent doctor referred to in Article 59(1) of the Staff
Regulations;

— so far as necessary, annul the Appointing Authority's deci-
sion of 17 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by
the applicant on 20 January 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of those examinations, OHIM ordered the appli-
cant to return to her post from 2 August 2005. The procedure
for an independent medical opinion, set in motion at the appli-
cant's request in accordance with Article 59(1) of the Staff
Regulations, confirmed the fact that the applicant's absence was
irregular.

In support of her application, the applicant puts forward three
pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of the fifth and
the sixth paragraphs of the abovementioned provision. So far
as the fifth paragraph is concerned, the applicant criticises the
calculation of the days of absence which OHIM treated as being
irregular following the medical examinations. So far as the
sixth paragraph is concerned, the applicant submits, first, that
AIPN acted improperly in its selection of
the independent
doctor, although there was no disagreement between the insti-
tution's medical officer and the applicant's doctor as regards
the selection of the third doctor. Second, the period of five
days referred to in the paragraph in question ran only from the
time when the institution's medical officer contacted the offi-
cial's doctor. In the alternative, she submits that this time-limit
is not mandatory.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of
reasons in the independent doctor's opinion was erroneous and
that it was not properly drawn up, in so far as the conclusions
of that opinion are not consistent with the medical findings
contained therein.

The applicant, an OHIM official, submitted medical certificates
justifying her absence from work from 7 April to 7 August
2005. The validity of those certificates was disputed by OHIM,
which required the applicant to undergo medical examinations.

In her third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty
to have regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of good
administration, the principle of openness and the rights of the
defence.