do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal nutrition, economic concentration, electrical energy, engine, exchange of information, foodstuff, industrial building, merger control, publishing

C 280/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 280/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 7 November 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 Doosan Corporation
(‘Doosan’, South Korea) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of
the whole of the undertaking Mitsui Babcock (‘Mitsui Babcock’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of
shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for undertaking Doosan: Animal feed, magazine publishing, food and alcohol, manufacture of diesel

engines, industrial plant and facilities, construction of infrastructure;

— for undertaking Mitsui Babcock: Aftermarket services to the power industry and other industrial

sectors, equipment and technology to the power sector.

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.

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.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock, 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.
(2) OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4257 — Smithfield/Oaktree/Sara Lee Foods Europe) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, meat processing industry, meat product, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/25

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4257 — Smithfield/Oaktree/Sara Lee Foods Europe)

(2006/C 280/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 July 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://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 32006M4257. EUR-Lex is the on-

line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)
Case T-383/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Drazdansky v OHIM — Bad Heilbrunner Naturheilmittel (VITACAN)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), beverage, trade-mark law

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/43

Considering the circumstances outlined above, the Commission
should have provided, as the applicants maintain, motivated
reasoning for clearing the notified operation. Having failed to
do so entails a violation of its duty to state reasons and thus of
Article 253 EC.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-382/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

(1) OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5-18

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

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-381/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Drazdansky v OHIM — Bad Heilbrunner Naturheil-
mittel (VITACAN)

(Case T-383/04) (1)

(2006/C 281/78)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

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

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.
Case T-382/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), shipbuilding

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/43

Considering the circumstances outlined above, the Commission
should have provided, as the applicants maintain, motivated
reasoning for clearing the notified operation. Having failed to
do so entails a violation of its duty to state reasons and thus of
Article 253 EC.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-382/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

(1) OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5-18

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

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-381/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Drazdansky v OHIM — Bad Heilbrunner Naturheil-
mittel (VITACAN)

(Case T-383/04) (1)

(2006/C 281/78)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

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

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.
Case T-242/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — AEPI v Commission (Copyright and related rights — Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Closure of procedure on a complaint submitted by an individual — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), competition law, complaint to the Commission, copyright, inter-company agreement, management, music

C 281/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

4. The Kingdom of Spain and the European Crop Protection Associa-

2. The applicants shall pay the costs.

tion shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

(1) OJ C 143 of 11.6.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006
— Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Mintra v Commis-
sion

(Case T-148/05) (1)

(Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure
— Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 — European system of
accounts 1995 (ESA 95) — Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 —
Letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities
(Eurostat) — Action for annulment — Act against which
proceedings can be brought — Inadmissibility)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006
— AEPI v Commission

(Case T-242/05) (1)

(Copyright and related rights — Proceedings for a declaration
of failure to fulfil obligations — Closure of procedure on a
complaint submitted by an individual — Action for annul-
ment — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 281/63)

Language of the case: Greek

(2006/C 281/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, infra-
estructuras del transporte (Mintra) (Madrid, Spain) (represented
by: C. Fernandez Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña and J. Sabater Maro-
tias, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Diaz-Llanos La Roche and L. Escobar Guerrero,
Agents)

Applicant: Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idiok-
tisias (AEPI AE) (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: T. Aspro-
gerakas-Grivas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
of 20 April 2005 not to initiate proceedings against the Greek
Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations and an
application that a ruling be given on the substance.

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
contained in a letter of the Statistical Office of the European
Communities (Eurostat) of 3 February 2005 concerning the
classification of Madrid, infraestructuras del transporte (Mintra)
in the sector ‘public administrations’ within the European
system of accounts 1995 (ESA 1995).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The applicant shall pay the costs.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

(1) OJ C 205 of 20.8.05.
Case F-35/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 — Grunheid v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, professional career, staff assessment

C 281/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decisions disregard the scope of Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations, which imposes on the Appointing Authority
the obligation to choose officials that are to be promoted essen-
tially on the basis of a consideration of their comparative
merits.

They also claim that Article 13 of the GPI, as interpreted and
applied by the Commission, is unlawful, since it disregards the
scope of the provision which it is supposed to implement as
well as the general principle of equal treatment and non-discri-
mination.

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v
Commission

(Case F-114/06)

(2006/C 281/89)

Language of the case: French

— in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points
in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular,
following the recommendations of the Promotion Commit-
tees;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven
following pleas in law:

— first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— second,

infringement of the general

implementing provi-

sions for that article;

— third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,

and a manifest error of assessment;

— fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbi-
trary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons;

— fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legiti-
mate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse
fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

— seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the

welfare of officials.

Parties

Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion
procedure, in so far as that list does not include the appli-
cant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the
preparatory measures for those decisions;

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 —
Grunheid v Commission

(Case F-35/06) (1)

(2006/C 281/90)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 November 2006

(2006/C 280/01)

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

1,2774

151,17

7,4582

0,67760

9,0621

1,6008

89,99

8,2680

1,9558

0,5777

27,988

15,6466

257,52

3,4528

0,6980

0,4293

3,7989

3,4902

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

239,68

35,626

1,8458

1,6706

1,4651

9,9485

1,9294

1,9921

KRW South Korean won

1 199,35

ZAR

CNY

HRK

IDR

South African rand

Chinese yuan renminbi

Croatian kuna

9,3120

10,0554

7,3621

Indonesian rupiah

11 704,82

MYR Malaysian ringgit

PHP

RUB

THB

Philippine peso

Russian rouble

Thai baht

4,6657

63,851

34,1020

46,812

(1) Source:

reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-416/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, explosive, fine, harmonisation of standards, national implementing measure, preparation for market, safety standard

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/27

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to fulfil the obligation under Direc-
tive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general frame-
work for informing and consulting employees in the Euro-
pean Community (1) to notify all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary for transposition of the
directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 23 March 2005.

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive
96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards invol-
ving dangerous substances (1), or in any event by having
failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2003/105/EC
expired on 30 June 2005.

(1) OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29.

(1) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97.

Action brought on 3 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-407/06)

(2006/C 281/43)

Language of the case: French

Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-416/05) (1)

(2006/C 281/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.
Case F-114/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 281/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decisions disregard the scope of Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations, which imposes on the Appointing Authority
the obligation to choose officials that are to be promoted essen-
tially on the basis of a consideration of their comparative
merits.

They also claim that Article 13 of the GPI, as interpreted and
applied by the Commission, is unlawful, since it disregards the
scope of the provision which it is supposed to implement as
well as the general principle of equal treatment and non-discri-
mination.

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v
Commission

(Case F-114/06)

(2006/C 281/89)

Language of the case: French

— in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points
in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular,
following the recommendations of the Promotion Commit-
tees;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven
following pleas in law:

— first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— second,

infringement of the general

implementing provi-

sions for that article;

— third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,

and a manifest error of assessment;

— fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbi-
trary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons;

— fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legiti-
mate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse
fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

— seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the

welfare of officials.

Parties

Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion
procedure, in so far as that list does not include the appli-
cant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the
preparatory measures for those decisions;

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 —
Grunheid v Commission

(Case F-35/06) (1)

(2006/C 281/90)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.
Case T-226/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Tendering procedure — Payment in kind — Damage suffered on the market in question due to the payment in kind — Causal link)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to act, aid system, award of contract, food aid, food industry

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/29

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders each party to bear half the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September
2006 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission

(Case T-226/01) (1)

(Non-contractual
procedure —
liability — Tendering
Payment in kind — Damage suffered on the market in ques-
tion due to the payment in kind — Causal link)

(2006/C 281/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (Castagnaro, Italy) (repre-
sented by: G. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September
2006 — British Aggregates v Commission

(Case T-210/02) (1)

(State aid — Environmental tax on aggregates in the United
Kingdom — Commission Decision not to raise objections —
Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individually
concerned — Selective character — Obligation to state
adequate reasons — Diligent and impartial examination)

(2006/C 281/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United
Kingdom) (represented by C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van
Den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by J. Flett and S. Meany, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by P.
Ormond, and subsequently by T. Harris and R. Caudwell,
acting as Agents, assisted initially by J. Stratford and M. Hall,
Barristers, and subsequently by M. Hall)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents, and A. Dal
Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Re:

Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused
by Commission Decisions C (96) 1916 of 22 July 1996 and
C (96) 2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted in the context of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996
on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the
people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

Partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 1478 final
of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United
Kingdom/Aggregates Levy

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the

Commission;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

(1) OJ C 219, 14.9.2002