do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5436 — Citi Infrastructure Partners LP/Itinere Infraestructuras SA) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, real estate business, venture capital

18.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5436 — Citi Infrastructure Partners LP/Itinere Infraestructuras SA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 39/01)

On 13 February 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 Spanish 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 32009M5436. EUR-Lex is the

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5418 — Blackfriars/Vink Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 39/02)

On 5 February 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 32009M5418. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case C-534/08: Order of the President of the Court of 18 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, interpretation of the law, ordinance








C_2009220EN.01003104.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/31





Order of the President of the Court of 18 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH
(Case C-534/08) (1)

2009/C 220/63

Language of the case: Dutch

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


(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 137/2009 of 18 February 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 48/1

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

I

REGULATIONS

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 137/2009

of 18 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 19 February 2009.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 18 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 48/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.2.2009

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

JO
MA
TR
ZZ

EG
ZZ

EG
IL
MA
TN
TR
ZZ

IL
MA
ZZ

EG
IL
JM
MA
PK
TR
ZZ

EG
MA
TR
ZZ

CA
CN
MK
US
ZZ

AR
CL
CN
US
ZA
ZZ

129,4
62,0
42,8
106,6
88,9
85,9

161,3
77,9
178,8
139,3

239,8
75,2
137,4
150,8

94,1
94,1

44,7
55,8
52,8
46,7
61,4
52,3

149,0
91,1
120,1

75,3
91,6
119,0
75,8
52,1
64,4
79,7

81,5
51,7
56,7
63,3

89,7
69,2
25,2
111,9
74,0

103,3
77,2
67,7
113,6
97,1
91,8

(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 T-346/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Directive 98/37/EC — Machinery bearing the CE marking — Hazards to the safety of persons — National prohibition measure — Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified — Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU law - national law, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), machinery, pressure equipment, safety standard, technical regulations, technical standard








C_2009090EN.01002602.xml










18.4.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/26





Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission
(Case T-346/06) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Directive 98/37/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘CE’ marking - Hazards to the safety of persons - National prohibition measure - Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified - Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility)
2009/C 90/42
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T. Romolotti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses and, second, application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of that opinion

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.










2.


The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible.










3.


The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the interim proceedings. As to the remainder, the Commission and Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) are ordered to bear half of the costs each.










4.


The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.
Case C-72/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, France, higher court, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, tax system








C_2009102EN.01001202.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence
(Case C-72/09)
2009/C 102/18
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ėtablissements Rimbaud SA

Defendants: Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

Question referred

Does Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area preclude legislation such as that imposed by Article 990D et seq. of the Code général des impôts, in the version applicable at the relevant time, which exempts from the 3% tax on the market value of immovable property situated in France companies which have their registered office in France and which, in respect of a company which has its registered office in a country in the European Economic Area and which is not a member of the European Union, makes that exemption subject either to the existence of a convention on administrative assistance between France and that State for the purposes of combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the effect that those legal persons cannot be more heavily taxed than companies established in France?
Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 90/396/EEC
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, approximation of laws, exchange of information, gas, gas appliance, pressure equipment, technical regulations

18.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/29

Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 2(2) of Council Directive
90/396/EEC

(This publication is based on information received by the Commission services from the Member States)

(2009/C 39/07)

Country

Gas family

Wobbe index (gross) in

Supply pressure in mbar

MJ/m3 or kWh/m3
(0 °C)

MJ/m3 or kWh/m3
(15 °C)

min.

nom.

max.

CYPRUS

THIRD

80,2-85,9 MJ/m3

20

28-30

35

ROMANIA

SECOND

Group A (L)

Group A (H)

THIRD

Group P

Group B/P

37,8-46,8 MJ/m3

35,9-44,4 MJ/m3

46,1-56,6 MJ/m3

43,7-53,7 MJ/m3

Min. 64,9 MJ/m3

Min. 70,7 MJ/m3

15

15

20

20

20

20

29

29

25

25

35

35
Case T-74/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — France v Commission
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF, European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural production, fruit vegetable








C_2009102EN.01002601.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/26





Action brought on 18 February 2009 — France v Commission
(Case T-74/09)
2009/C 102/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in favour of fruit and vegetables producer organisations for the financial years 2005 and 2006;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes, for the financial years 2005 and 2006, certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic.
In support of its action the applicant relies on two pleas in law alleging:






—


misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(2)(d) of Regulation No 2200/96 (1) in so far as, contrary to what the Commission found, the French Government satisfies the conditions laid down by that provision since every producer has the necessary material and, in accordance with the objective of economic effectiveness pursued by that regulation, it may, in certain circumstances, be more appropriate for each producer to hold the necessary material than to use a single sorting, storage and packaging centre provided by the producer organisation;










—


misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(1)(c), point 3, of Regulation No 2200/96 in so far as the Commission was wrong to take the view that the French Government had not complied with the conditions of that provision, which provides that the rules of association of producer organisations require producer members to market their entire production through the producer organisation although the French legislation provides for producer organisations to play an active role in the marketing of products and the fixing of selling prices.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).
Extract from the Decision concerning Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, bank, credit institution, decontamination, validation of expenditure

C 39/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.2.2009

Extract from the Decision concerning Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to Directive
2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of
credit institutions

(2009/C 39/08)

ADDITION TO THE REMIT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF KAUPTHING BANK LUXEMBOURG S.A. UNDER
SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS

By judgment of 28 January 2009, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, fourth Chamber, sitting in commercial
matters, after hearing in closed session the submissions of the administrators and the representative of
Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A., the representatives of the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier
(Financial Sector Supervisory Commission) and the representative of the public prosecutor's office, reversed
the Judgment of 24 December 2008 of the Luxembourg District Court and made an addition to the admin-
istrators' remit as laid down in the judgments of the Luxembourg District Court sitting in commercial
matters of 9 October 2008 granting the application of Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. for suspension of
payments under the procedure provided for by Luxembourg legislation and of 31 October 2008, and
ordered that:

‘the administrators shall require the creditors for whom the restructuring plan does not provide for full
and immediate compensation (“the restructured creditors”) to approve the plan; this plan will be consid-
ered to be approved and will be binding upon such creditors if more than half the restructured creditors
representing more than half the liabilities represented by the restructured debts mark their consent;
creditors who do not express any opinion will be deemed to approve the restructuring plan; approval or
rejection of the restructuring plan submitted to the restructured creditors may be expressed by whatever
means, including e-mail;

once the restructuring plan has been definitively approved and adopted as set out above, it will be
subject to approval by the district court;’

Financial Sector Supervisory Commission

Luxembourg, 28 January 2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

18.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/15

IV

(Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND
BODIES

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2009

(2009/C 39/04)

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

1,2634

AUD Australian dollar

116,20

7,4520

0,88510

10,9780

CAD

HKD

NZD

SGD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

Singapore dollar

1,9750

1,5959

9,7966

2,4790

1,9275

1,4813

KRW South Korean won

1 850,88

8,7940

1,9558

29,490

ZAR

CNY

HRK

IDR

South African rand

Chinese yuan renminbi

Croatian kuna

Indonesian rupiah

15,6466

MYR Malaysian ringgit

307,15

3,4528

0,7076

4,8795

4,3050

2,1209

PHP

RUB

THB

BRL

Philippine peso

Russian rouble

Thai baht

Brazilian real

MXN Mexican peso

INR

Indian rupee

12,8734

8,6410

7,4736

15 539,82

4,5994

60,450

45,7558

44,554

2,9121

18,4469

62,4560

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5418 — Blackfriars/Vink Holding) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, United Kingdom, United States, building industry, economic concentration, electrical equipment, exchange of information, merger control, plastics, wholesale selling

18.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5436 — Citi Infrastructure Partners LP/Itinere Infraestructuras SA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 39/01)

On 13 February 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 Spanish 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 32009M5436. EUR-Lex is the

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5418 — Blackfriars/Vink Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 39/02)

On 5 February 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 32009M5418. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case C-74/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice v Berlaymont 2000 SA
Date: 2009-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, award of contract, building industry, building materials, higher court, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2009102EN.01001203.xml










1.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice v Berlaymont 2000 SA
(Case C-74/09)
2009/C 102/19
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bâtiments et Ponts Construction, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice

Defendant: Berlaymont 2000

Questions referred







1.


Is the obligation to hold a registration in order to be awarded a public contract in Belgium, such as that imposed by Article 1.G of the special conditions applicable in the present case, contrary to the principle of freedom of movement within the European Union and to the second paragraph of Article 24 of 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) if it had to be interpreted as permitting the Belgian contracting authority to exclude from the tender procedure a foreign contractor who does not hold a registration but has produced equivalent certificates from his national authorities?










2.


Is it contrary to the principle of freedom of movement within the European Union and to the second paragraph of Article 24 of 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts to grant a Belgian contracting authority the power to require foreign tenderers to submit to a Belgian authority — the committee for the registration of contractors — for assessment of the validity of the certificates which have been issued to them by the tax and social security authorities of their State, attesting that they have fulfilled the obligations imposed on them relating to tax and social security?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.