do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 30/2008 of 16 January 2008 fixing the definitive rate of refund and the percentage of system B export licences to be issued in the fruit and vegetables sector (tomatoes, oranges, lemons, table grapes and apples)
Date: 2008-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, export licence, export refund, fruit vegetable, grape, pip fruit

17.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 14/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 30/2008

of 16 January 2008

fixing the definitive rate of refund and the percentage of system B export licences to be issued in
the fruit and vegetables sector (tomatoes, oranges, lemons, table grapes and apples)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of
28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market
in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001
of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit
and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(7) thereof,

Whereas:

refund for

tomatoes, oranges,
The definitive rate of
lemons,
table grapes and apples covered by licences
applied for under system B between 1 November and
31 December 2007 should be fixed at the indicative
rate, and the percentage of licences to be issued for the
quantities applied for should be laid down,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

for

system B export

submitted
For applications
pursuant
to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1203/2007
between 1 November and 31 December 2007, the percentages
of licences to be issued and the rates of refund applicable are
fixed in the Annex hereto.

licences

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1203/2007 (3) fixed the
indicative quantities for the issue of B system export
licences.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 January 2008.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 January 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
Director-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 548/2007 (OJ L 130, 22.5.2007, p. 3).

(3) OJ L 271, 16.10.2007, p. 10.

L 14/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.1.2008

Percentages for the issuing of licences and rates of refund applicable to system B licences applied for between
1 November and 31 December 2007 (tomatoes, oranges, lemons, table grapes and apples)

ANNEX

Product

Rate of refund
(EUR/t net)

Percentages of licences to
be issued for the quantities
applied for

Tomatoes

Oranges

Lemons

Table grapes

Apples

20

26

50

13

22

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad (Case E-1/08)
Date: 2008-01-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, EU law - national law, Norway, health expenditure, social security, social-security benefit, therapeutics

C 113/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.5.2008

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese
Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment
Abroad

(Case E-1/08)

(2008/C 113/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 January 2008 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2008, for an Advisory Opinion in the case
of Therese Slinning v the State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad,
on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international
medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treat-
ment in the home State?

2. Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment in question must be
considered to be implemented in the home State or the home State is considering its implementation in
the future?

3. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for
hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treat-
ment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit?

Is it of significance for the answer to this question that:

(a) coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly

more advanced than the treatment in the home State?

(b) the patient, having decided to receive treatment abroad rather than an adequate treatment in the
home State, does not get coverage for the costs of treatment abroad to the same extent as the treat-
ment offered in the home State would have cost?

4. Is it of significance for the answers to the questions above whether:

(a) the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State

which can be considered adequate treatment?

(b) the treatment given abroad actually led to an improvement of the specific patient's state of health?
Case T-306/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 January 2008 — Scippacercola and Terezakis v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport — Rejection of the complaint — No Community interest)
Date: 2008-01-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), airport, charges for use of infrastructure, complaint to the Commission, dominant position

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/41

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008
— Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of
and Terezakis v
16 January 2008 — Scippacercola

(Case T-9/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE — Earlier
national figurative mark AMPLY — Relative ground for
refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Commission

(Case T-306/05) (1)

(Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Allegation of
excessive
of Athens
International Airport — Rejection of the complaint — No
Community interest)

applied by

operator

charges

the

(2008/C 51/75)

Language of the case: English

(2008/C 51/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by:
A. Nordemann, C.-R. Haarmann, F. Schwab and M. Nentwig,
lawyers)

Applicants: Isabella Scippacercola (Brussels, Belgium) and Ioannis
Terezakis
and
G. Stylianakis, lawyers)

(represented by: A. Krystallidis

(Brussels)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
and Designs)
Monguiral and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

(represented by: A.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Hellström, A. Nijenhuis and F. Amato, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,
intervener before the Court of First Instance: Indo Internacional SA
(Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)
(represented by: M. Currel
Aguilà, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1),
relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional
SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision
of 2 May 2005 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the
conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant
to
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting
complaint No COMP/D3/38469 concerning the levy of certain
charges by the operator of Athens International Airport at Spata
and by Olympic Fuel Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs.

costs.

2. Orders Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis to pay the

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4896 — CVC Capital Partners/Katopé International) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2008-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crop production, economic concentration, exchange of information, floriculture, fruit, investment, merger control, prepared foodstuff, vegetable

C 11/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.1.2008

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION
POLICY

COMMISSION

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4896 — CVC Capital Partners/Katopé International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 11/07)

1.
On 4 January 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by
which the undertaking De Weide Blik N.V. (‘De Weide Blik’, Belgium), controlled by CVC Capital Partners
Group SARL (‘CVC’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation
control of the whole of the undertaking Katopé International SA (‘Katopé’, France) by way of purchase of
shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for undertaking CVC: private equity,

— for undertaking De Weide Blik: production, import, export, handling and logistics of fresh fruit, vegeta-

bles, flowers, flower bulbs, plants and convenience meals,

— for undertaking Katopé: production,
off-season fruits as well as vegetables.

import, export, packing and distribution of exotic, citrus and

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.4896 — CVC Capital Partners/Katopé International, 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.