do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5310 — Jysk Stålindustrie/Volgo-Balt) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Russia, economic concentration, exchange of information, handling, harbour installation, holding company, iron and steel industry, maritime transport, merger control

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5367 — BC Funds/SGB Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 26/05)

On 25 November 2008, 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 German 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 32008M5367. EUR-Lex is the

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5310 — Jysk Stålindustrie/Volgo-Balt)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 26/06)

On 15 January 2009, 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 32009M5310. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case T-43/09: Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda)
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), administrative formalities, trade-mark law

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/53

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of
mark applicant upheld.

the Board of Appeal: Action brought by the trade

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Articles 73
and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
1993 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM
— Gelkaps (Ayanda)

(Case T-43/09)

(2009/C 69/115)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2009 —
Italy v Commission

(Case T-431/04) (1)

(2009/C 69/116)

Language of the case: Italian

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

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Parties

Applicant: La Cachuera SA (Misiones, Argentina) (represented by:
E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany).

Form of order sought

— Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) of 19 November 2008 lodged in time and
in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure,
order the annulment of that decision and order expressly
that OHIM pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gelkaps GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AYANDA’ (Appli-
cation No 3.315.405) for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 28,
29, 30, 32 and 44.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: The applicant.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 —
Commission v Banca di Roma

(Case T-261/07) (1)

(2009/C 69/117)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2009 —
Comtec Translations v Commission

(Case T-239/08) (1)

(2009/C 69/118)

Language of the case: English

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative and word
marks ‘AMANDA’, for goods in Class 30.

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

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Case F-40/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 February 2009 — Cavalhal Garcia v Council (Staff case — Former officials — Remuneration — Education allowance — Refusal to grant — Action out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, education grant

C 82/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2009

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of
17 February 2009 — Liotti v Commission

(Case F-38/08) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development
report — 2006 appraisal procedure — Appraisal rules applied
by the reporting officers)

(2009/C 82/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Re:

The annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision not to
include the applicant on the list of those promoted to grade
AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Annuls the decisions of 16 July 2007 and of 5 February 2008 by
the European Union refused to promote

which the Council of
Mr Stols to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, Agents)

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 34.

Re:

Annulment of
respect of 2006.

the applicant's career development report

in

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Mr Liotti's career development report
period from 1 January to 31 December 2006;

in respect of

the

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
17 February 2009 — Stols v Council

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
3 February 2009 — Cavalhal Garcia v Council

(Case F-40/08) (1)

(Staff case — Former officials — Remuneration — Education
allowance — Refusal to grant — Action out of time — Mani-
fest inadmissibility)

(2009/C 82/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Paula Cavalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (repre-
sented by: Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)

(Case F-51/08) (1)

Re:

(Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion
procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Manifest
error of assessment)

Annulment of the Council's decision removing the right to the
education allowance as regards the applicant's daughter.

(2009/C 82/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Ms Carvalhal Garcia is to pay all the costs.

Applicant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by:
S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 33.

Defendant: Council of
Mr Bauer and Ms Balta, Agents)

the European Union (represented by:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5367 — BC Funds/SGB Group) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical equipment, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, private investment

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5367 — BC Funds/SGB Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 26/05)

On 25 November 2008, 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 German 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 32008M5367. EUR-Lex is the

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5310 — Jysk Stålindustrie/Volgo-Balt)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 26/06)

On 15 January 2009, 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 32009M5310. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, agroforestry, control of State aid, exchange of information, farming sector

C 26/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission
Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid
to small and medium-sized enterprises

(2009/C 26/09)

Aid No

Member State

Region

XA 7050/07

Portugal

Mainland Portugal

Title of aid scheme or name of
company receiving individual aid

Cooperação para a Inovação

Medida 4.1. do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural — Continente

Legal basis

Regulation (EC) No 70/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 364/2004.

Annual expenditure planned under
the scheme or overall amount of indi-
vidual aid granted to the company

Measure 4.1 of the Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural — Continente (Mainland
Portugal Rural Development Programme) has as its basis Article 29 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1698/2005 and will be the subject of national
implementing
regulations following approval of the programme by the Commission

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

EUR 5 337 951

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 70/2001

Yes

The aid intensity will vary
depending on the nature
of the project, but will in
no case exceed 75 %

Date of implementation

Start: 2007

Duration of scheme or individual aid
award

Until 31 December 2013

Objective of aid

To support initiatives for cooperation between firms, associations and centres of
technology in order to develop, transfer and disseminate new products, processes
and technologies

Economic sector(s) concerned

Agri-food and forestry

Name and address of
authority

the granting

Autoridade de Gestão do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural — Continente

Rua Padre António Vieira, n.o 1
P-1099-073 Lisboa
www.gpp.pt

Large individual aid grants

No
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2009 of 19 January 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund concerning certain provisions relating to financial management ( OJ L 25, 29.1.2009 )
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Development Fund, administrative cooperation, competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, financial management, investment, operation of the Institutions, powers of the institutions (EU), regional development

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 33/49

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2009 of 19 January 2009 amending Regulation (EC)
No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund concerning certain provisions relating to financial management

(Official Journal of the European Union L 25 of 29 January 2009)

The text of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2009, published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 25 of 29 January
2009, p. 1, should be considered as null and void.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 104/2009 of 3 February 2009 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Gorgonzola (PDO))
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, location of production, product designation, soft cheese

L 34/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2009

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 104/2009

of 3 February 2009

approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of
protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Gorgonzola (PDO))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of
20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and food­
stuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4)
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1)
and in application of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC)
the Commission has examined Italy’s
No 510/2006,
application for the approval of amendments to the speci­
the
fication
origin
of
‘Gorgonzola’
registered on the basis of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).

designation

protected

of

Since the amendments in question are not minor within
the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No
510/2006, the Commission published the amendment
of
application in the Official
the European
Union (3) as
subparagraph of
Article 6(2) of
that Regulation. As no statement of
objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the
amendments should be approved,

Journal
required by the first

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amendments to the specification published in the Official
Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex
to this Regulation are hereby approved.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following
its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 February 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL
Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 111, 6.5.2008, p. 51.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

ANNEX

Class 1.3. Cheeses

ITALY

Gorgonzola (PDO)
Case T-239/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2009 — Comtec Translations v Commission
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, ordinance, provision of services, translation

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/53

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of
mark applicant upheld.

the Board of Appeal: Action brought by the trade

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Articles 73
and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
1993 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM
— Gelkaps (Ayanda)

(Case T-43/09)

(2009/C 69/115)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2009 —
Italy v Commission

(Case T-431/04) (1)

(2009/C 69/116)

Language of the case: Italian

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

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Parties

Applicant: La Cachuera SA (Misiones, Argentina) (represented by:
E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany).

Form of order sought

— Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) of 19 November 2008 lodged in time and
in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure,
order the annulment of that decision and order expressly
that OHIM pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gelkaps GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AYANDA’ (Appli-
cation No 3.315.405) for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 28,
29, 30, 32 and 44.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: The applicant.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 —
Commission v Banca di Roma

(Case T-261/07) (1)

(2009/C 69/117)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2009 —
Comtec Translations v Commission

(Case T-239/08) (1)

(2009/C 69/118)

Language of the case: English

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative and word
marks ‘AMANDA’, for goods in Class 30.

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

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Action brought on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein (Case E-1/09)
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, EU law - national law, European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, noise pollution, supervisory body

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/31

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA COURT

Action brought on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of
Liechtenstein

(Case E-1/09)

(2009/C 41/09)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 February 2009
by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Florence Simonetti, acting as
Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. by requiring the members of the management board and of the executive management of banks
established in Liechtenstein to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to actually and flaw-
lessly perform their functions and duties, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 28 and 31 thereof;

2. by requiring a residence, wherefrom he is able to fulfil his tasks effectively and on a regular
basis, for lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees the Principality of Liechtenstein has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 31 thereof;

3. the Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

— the case concerns residence requirements under Liechtenstein law for members of the management
board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein, and for lawyers, patent
lawyers, auditors and trustees,

— Article 28 EEA secures freedom of movement for EEA nationals and abolishes discrimination based on

nationality within EEA as regards inter alia employment,

— Article 31 EEA requires equal treatment between EEA nationals invoking their right to freedom of estab-

lishment and those nationals of the country where the establishment is effected.