do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-344/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2009 — Air One v Commission
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid for restructuring, air transport, financial aid

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/35

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2009 —
Air One v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2009 —
EMSA v Portugal

(Case T-344/02) (1)

(2009/C 82/60)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case T-4/08) (1)

(2009/C 82/61)

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

Language of the case: Portuguese

(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.

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

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
Action brought on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-2/09)
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, EU law - national law, European Economic Area, Iceland, air safety, air transport, supervisory body

C 41/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.2.2009

Action brought on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-2/09)

(2009/C 41/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveil-
lance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, 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 failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 66s of Chapter VI
of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Regulation (EC)
No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety
Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order
within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 7 EEA;

and

2. the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the present case concerns an EC regulation on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation

Safety Agency,

— Article 7 of the EEA Agreement states that:

‘Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be
binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order as follows:

(a) an act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal

legal order of the

Contracting Parties;

(b) an act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the Contracting Parties the choice of

form and method of implementation.’,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has failed to make the regulation

part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.
Case C-52/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, interpretation of the law, new technology, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2009090EN.01001202.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB
(Case C-52/09)
2009/C 90/19
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Tingsrätt Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Intervener: Tele2 Sverige Aktiebolag

Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB

Questions referred







1.


Under what conditions does an infringement of Article 82 EC arise on the basis of a difference between the price charged by a vertically integrated dominant undertaking for the sale of input ADSL products to competitors on the wholesale market and the price which the same undertaking charges on the end-user market?










2.


Is it only the prices of the dominant undertaking to end-users which are relevant or should the prices of competitors on the end-user market also be taken into account in the consideration of question 1?










3.


Is the answer to question 1 affected by the fact that the dominant undertaking does not have any regulatory obligation to supply on the wholesale market but has, rather, chosen to do so on its own initiative?










4.


Is an anti-competitive effect required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse and, if so, how is that effect be to be determined?










5.


Is the answer to question 1 affected by the degree of market strength enjoyed by the dominant undertaking?










6.


Is the dominant position on both the wholesale market and the end-user market of the undertaking engaging in the practice required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?










7.


For a practice such as that described in question 1 to constitute abuse, must the good or service supplied by the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market be indispensable to competitors?










8.


Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether the supply is to a new customer?










9.


Is an expectation that the dominant undertaking will be able to recoup the losses it has incurred required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?










10.


Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether a change of technology is involved on a market with a high investment requirement, for example with regard to reasonable establishment costs and the possible need to sell at a loss during an establishment phase?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5465 — Orkla/Sapa) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: alloy, aluminium, consumer goods, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment, merger control, prefabrication, renewable energy

6.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/25

V

(Announcements)

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION
POLICY

COMMISSION

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5465 — Orkla/Sapa)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 30/07)

1.
On 30 January 2009, 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 Orkla ASA (‘Orkla’,
Norway) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of
the undertaking Sapa AB (‘Sapa’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Orkla: active in the branded consumer goods, aluminium solution, renewable energy, specialty

materials, financial investment sectors,

— for Sapa: active in manufacture and supply of soft alloy extrusions businesses.

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.5465 — Orkla/Sapa, to the following address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5459 — Alcoa/Elkem) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, exchange of information, industrial production, marketing, merger control, sale

C 30/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.2.2009

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5459 — Alcoa/Elkem)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 30/08)

1.
On 29 January 2009, 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 Alcoa Inc. (‘Alcoa’, Unites
States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the
undertaking Elkem Aluminium ANS (‘Elkem Aluminium’, Norway) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Alcoa: aluminium industry, including the production, sale and marketing of primary aluminium,

— for Elkem Aluminium: production, sale and marketing of primary aluminium.

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under
reference number COMP/M.5459 — Alcoa/Elkem, to the following address:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
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 C-17/08 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2009 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Refusal of registration — Word mark manufacturing score card — Descriptive character)
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, data recording, information technology industry, software, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2009113EN.01001501.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/15





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2009 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-17/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal of registration - Word mark manufacturing score card - Descriptive character)
2009/C 113/29
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (manufacturing score card), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005, which dismissed the appeal against the decision of the examiner refusing registration of the word mark ‘manufacturing score card’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 — Distinctive character of a word mark consisting of words each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


MPDV Mikrolab GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, exchange of information

6.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/23

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 30/05)

Date of adoption of the decision

17.12.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 387/08

Member State

Region

France

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Système d'aides au transport

Legal basis

Projet de délibération du Conseil d'Administration de l'ADEME (Agence de
l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Form of aid

Budget

Intensity

Duration

Environmental protection

Direct grant

EUR 30 million (total budget)

50 %

1.1.2009-31.12.2014

Economic sectors

All

Name and address of
authority

the granting

Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME)
20, avenue du Grésillé
BP 90 406
F-49004 Angers cedex 01

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be
found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
Case F-9/09: Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, admission to examinations, competition (EU)

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/37

Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Vicente Carbajosa
and Others v Commission

(Case F-9/09)

(2009/C 82/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant:
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
lawyers)

Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium)

(repre-
J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

the decision adopting and
Application for annulment of
publishing the
competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and
EPSO/AD/117/08 and the decisions relating to the correction of
the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of
marks for the oral tests.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Moschonaki v
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions

(Case F-10/09)

(2009/C 82/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki
sented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(repre-

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions (Eurofound)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, application for annulment of the decision rejecting the
applicant's complaint of psychological harassment against the
head of Human Resources and, secondly, application for an
order that the defendant must pay the applicant compensation
for the harm suffered.

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decisions publishing and fixing the
conditions for admission to and the conduct of the tests in
competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08;

— Annul the decisions of the selection boards for competitions
EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 relating to the
correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and
the awarding of marks for the oral tests;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the Director of the Foundation of
29 February 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
harassment against the head of Human Resources;

— So far as necessary, annul the express decision of the Foun-
dation of 24 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought
by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 27 June 2008;

— order the Foundation to pay the applicant compensation

assessed provisionally at EUR 100 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/2009 of 6 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 38/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 111/2009

of 6 February 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Whereas:

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of
22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agri­
cultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agri­
cultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,
the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values
for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and
periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007
of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for
Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and
(EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in
particular Article 138(1) thereof,

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regu­
lation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 February 2009.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 6 February 2009.

For the Commission

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

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

L 38/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0709 90 80

0805 10 20

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 50 10

0808 10 80

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

IL
JO
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

JO
MA
TR
ZZ

MA
TR
ZZ

EG
ZZ

EG
IL
MA
TN
TR
ZA
ZZ

IL
MA
TR
ZZ

CN
IL
JM
MA
PK
TR
ZZ

EG
MA
TR
ZZ

AR
CA
CL
CN
MK
US
ZZ

AR
CL
CN
US
ZA
ZZ

111,0
68,6
43,3
125,1
97,4
89,1

155,5
134,2
174,8
154,8

115,0
134,5
124,8

278,0
278,0

46,1
53,2
54,2
46,9
54,3
44,9
49,9

163,3
99,5
52,0
104,9

71,6
66,3
101,6
149,3
40,0
70,3
83,2

48,0
60,7
50,1
52,9

91,9
86,3
67,8
82,5
32,6
117,0
79,7

102,5
73,7
67,1
118,6
103,0
93,0

(1) Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands

for ‘of other origin’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

C 30/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.2.2009

IV

(Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND
BODIES

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 February 2009

(2009/C 30/06)

1 euro =

Currency

Exchange rate

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

LVL

PLN

RON

TRY

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Norwegian krone

Bulgarian lev

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

Latvian lats

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Turkish lira

1,2829

AUD Australian dollar

115,04

7,4511

0,878

10,6265

CAD

HKD

NZD

SGD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

Singapore dollar

1,9772

1,5807

9,9472

2,5033

1,9325

1,4919

KRW South Korean won

1 770,63

8,779

1,9558

28,248

ZAR

CNY

HRK

IDR

South African rand

Chinese yuan renminbi

Croatian kuna

Indonesian rupiah

15,6466

MYR Malaysian ringgit

294,99

3,4528

0,7032

4,6485

4,279

PHP

RUB

THB

BRL

Philippine peso

Russian rouble

Thai baht

Brazilian real

MXN Mexican peso

2,1032

INR

Indian rupee

12,7571

8,7708

7,3952

14 962,46

4,6372

60,72

46,601

44,845

2,9559

18,5251

62,426

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.