do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5409 — Strabag/Kemna/Wellmann) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, construction equipment, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, waste recycling

C 34/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2009

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION
POLICY

COMMISSION

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5409 — Strabag/Kemna/Wellmann)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 34/07)

1.
On 2 February 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 undertakings Strabag SE (‘Strabag’,
Austria) and Kemna Bau Andreae GmbH & Co. KG (‘Kemna’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of
Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Hermann Wellmann
Tiefbau GmbH & Co. KG (‘Wellmann’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Strabag: construction services, production and sales of building materials,

— for Kemna: construction services and, production and sales of building materials,

— for Wellmann: construction, recycling of building materials and mining of sand and gravel.

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. 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.5409 — Strabag/Kemna/Wellmann, 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 F-7/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2009 — Schönberger v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Award of merit points — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, European Parliament, action by staff, professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants








C_2009102EN.01003902.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/39





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2009 — Schönberger v Parliament
(Case F-7/08) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Award of merit points - Principle of equal treatment)
2009/C 102/58
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and A. Zejdová, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2007 to award the applicant a lower number of priority points than he wished.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decisions by which the European Parliament refused to award a third merit point to Mr Schönberger under the 2003 appraisal procedure;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 69.
Case T-53/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2009090EN.01003001.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/30





Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)
(Case T-53/09)
2009/C 90/47
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dieter Christian

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BEST FARM’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (Registration No 3 089 281)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant acting under its previous corporate name KORD Beiteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BESTFORM’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 42 (No 300 563 34)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there exists a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the conflicting marks


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
Case C-60/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2009 — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pharmaceutical legislation, pharmacy, public health, rural settlement








C_2009090EN.01001502.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2009 — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri
(Case C-60/09)
2009/C 90/23
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lucio Rubano

Defendants: Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union that there is a single pharmacy in municipalities with a population of fewer than 4 000 inhabitants?










2.


Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of a second pharmacy in municipalities with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as (i) in order to be taken into account, the population in excess of that number must represent at least 50 per cent of the number triggering the pharmacy requirement, (ii) the new pharmacy must be at least 3 000 metres away from the existing pharmacy and (iii) there must be special needs on the part of the pharmacy service, related to the local terrain and road conditions, to be assessed both by the health units (local health offices) and by the local association of pharmacists or, in any event, by the authorities competent for matters concerning the organisation and supervision of the pharmacy service?
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Faroes, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, freshwater fish, import

11.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/7

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON
COMMERCIAL POLICY

COMMISSION

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2009/C 57/04)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no request for a review was
lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community (2).

Product

Country(ies) of origin
or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Rainbow trout

Faeroe Islands

Anti-dumping duty

Council
No
437/2004
11.3.2004, p. 23)

Regulation
(OJ

(EC)
72,

L

12.3.2009

1628/2003

Regulation
L
(OJ

(EC)
Commission
No
232,
18.9.2003, p. 29) as last amended
by Commission Regulation (EC)
17,
117/2004
No
24.1.2004, p. 4)

(OJ

L

Undertaking

(1) OJ C 266, 21.10.2008, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, carbon, electrical equipment

11.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/11

V

(Announcements)

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON
COMMERCIAL POLICY

COMMISSION

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2009/C 34/06)

1.
As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) and in
Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidies
imports from countries not members of the European Community (2), the Commission gives notice that,
unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping and countervailing
measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2. Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient
evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of
dumping/subsidisation and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of
the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify,
rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3. Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European
Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 9/43, B-1049 Brussels (3) at any time from
the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned
in the table below.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and with

4.
Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97.

Product

Country(ies) of origin
or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Graphite electrode
systems

Graphite electrode
systems

India

India

Anti-dumping duty

Countervailing
duty

Council
1629/2004
No
18.9.2004, p. 10)

Regulation
(OJ

Council
No
1628/2004
18.9.2004, p. 4)

Regulation
(OJ

(EC)
295,

(EC)
295,

L

L

19.9.2009

19.9.2009

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(3) Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5385 — Avnet/Abacus) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, exchange of information, information technology industry, innovation, merger control

11.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5385 — Avnet/Abacus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 34/01)

On 19 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 32009M5385. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4403 — Thales/Finmeccanica/AAS & Telespazio
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, information system, merger control, satellite, technology

C 34/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2009

Final Report (1) of

the Hearing Officer

in Case COMP/M.4403 — Thales/Finmeccanica/

AAS & Telespazio

(2009/C 34/04)

On 6 October 2006, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration by which the under-
takings Thales S.A. (Thales) and Finmeccanica Società per Azioni (Finmeccanica) acquire, within the meaning
of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), joint control of the
undertakings Alcatel Alenia Space SAS (AAS) and Telespazio Holding srl (Telespazio) by way of purchase of
shares in two existing joint ventures to which additional assets are contributed.

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified transaction
falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the
common market. It therefore decided, on 28 November 2006, to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c)
of the Merger Regulation.

The parties had then access to the key documents of the file, in application of the Best Practices for merger
case, through a non-confidential summary of the responses of third parties to the requests for information
in first phase, which was provided to them on 7, 8 and 11 December 2006.

Following an in-depth market investigation, the Commission services considered that the serious doubts had
been removed and that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the
common market or a substantial part of it and that it hence should be declared compatible with the
common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was
sent to the parties.

No queries or submission have been made to me by the parties or any other third party. The case does not
call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 26 March 2007.

Serge DURANDE

(1) Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of

Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

C 34/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2009

IV

(Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND
BODIES

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 February 2009

(2009/C 34/02)

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

1,2967

AUD Australian dollar

118,39

7,4526

0,8771

10,5205

CAD

HKD

NZD

SGD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

Singapore dollar

1,94

1,5866

10,0521

2,4176

1,9414

1,5061

KRW South Korean won

1 799,56

8,641

1,9558

28,02

ZAR

CNY

HRK

IDR

South African rand

Chinese yuan renminbi

Croatian kuna

Indonesian rupiah

15,6466

MYR Malaysian ringgit

287,7

3,4528

0,7031

4,4495

4,251

2,099

PHP

RUB

THB

BRL

Philippine peso

Russian rouble

Thai baht

Brazilian real

MXN Mexican peso

INR

Indian rupee

12,5682

8,8598

7,438

15 326,99

4,6539

60,54

46,4113

45,381

2,9208

18,4391

63,104

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-54/09: Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009090EN.01003002.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/30





Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)
(Case T-54/09)
2009/C 90/48
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: XXXLutzMarken (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, 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: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 in Case R 1787/2007-2;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: XXXLutzMarken

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘LineaNatura Natur hat immer Stil’ for goods in Classes 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 (Registration No 4 626 693)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Natura Selection S.L.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘natura selection’ (Community trade mark No 2 016 384) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42, and further Community trade marks and Spanish mark comprising the word ‘natura’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 125/2009 of 11 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

12.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 125/2009

of 11 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 12 February 2009.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 11 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 41/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.2.2009

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

195,3
68,6
43,2
112,2
89,3
101,7

170,1
134,2
152,3
152,2

105,0
153,9
129,5

103,6
103,6

46,5
50,6
56,5
39,8
61,8
44,9
50,0

150,3
105,9
52,0
102,7

72,2
90,2
101,6
161,0
48,3
64,3
89,6

44,9
55,1
58,1
52,7

91,9
90,4
67,8
79,0
32,6
111,6
78,9

106,4
57,1
52,9
110,5
98,2
85,0

(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’.
Case C-58/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
Date: 2009-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, financial institution, financial legislation, game of chance, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2009113EN.01001903.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
(Case C-58/09)
2009/C 113/39
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Leo-Libera GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

Question referred

Is Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted to have a rule under which only specified forms of (race) betting and lotteries are exempt from tax, and all ‘other forms of gambling’ are excluded from the tax exemption?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.