do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5365 — IPO/EnBW/Praha/PT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy distribution, exchange of information, heating, merger control, provision of services, wholesale trade








C_2009216EN.01002201.xml










10.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/22





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5365 — IPO/EnBW/Praha/PT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 216/09






1.


On 1 September 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which International Power Opatovice, a.s. (‘IPO’, Czech Republic), controlled by International Power plc (‘IPR’, United Kingdom), EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (‘EnBW’, Germany), jointly controlled by Electricité de France (‘EdF’, France) and Zweckverband Oberschwäbische Elektrizitätswerke (‘OEW’, Germany), and hlavní město Praha (‘City of Prague’, Czech Republic) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Pražská teplárenská, a.s. (‘PT’, Czech Republic) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for IPO: generation and wholesale supply of electricity and provision of district heat, among other activities,










—


for EnBW: generation and wholesale supply of electricity, among other activities,










—


for City of Prague: supplies services to households and corporate customers in Prague,










—


for PT: provision of district heat, generation and wholesale supply of electricity.














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.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed 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 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5365 — IPO/EnBW/Praha/PT, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5575 — ORBEO/Parts of Onecarbon) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, financial services, hairdressing and beauty care, investment bank, merger control, motor vehicle industry, reduction of gas emissions








C_2009216EN.01000402.xml










10.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5575 — ORBEO/Parts of Onecarbon)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 216/03
On 3 September 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 Regulation (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:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5575. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case F-9/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Rosenbaum v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Grading — Request for reclassification — Scope of Article 13 in Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Taking into account professional experience — Recruitment in the grade of the competition — Article 31 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Free movement of workers)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants








C_2009267EN.01008303.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/83





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Rosenbaum v Commission
(Case F-9/08) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Grading - Request for reclassification - Scope of Article 13 in Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Taking into account professional experience - Recruitment in the grade of the competition - Article 31 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Free movement of workers)
2009/C 267/150
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and M. Bauer, Agents)

Re:

Staff case — First, annulment of the decision classifying the applicant, a successful candidate in a competition held for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in Grade A7/A6, in Grade AD 6/2 and, second, an application for reclassification.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Rosenbaum to bear his costs and to pay those of the Commission of the European Communities;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 70.
Case C-269/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Savings-pension bonus — Full liability to tax)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of workers, frontier worker, supplementary pension, tax law








C_2009267EN.01000902.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-269/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Savings-pension bonus - Full liability to tax)
2009/C 267/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and M. Lumma, Agents, W. Wellisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC, and of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition I 1968(II), p. 475) — National legislation concerning incentive allowances for savings pensions, the grant of which is conditional upon full liability to taxation in the Member State, providing for the repayment of the allowance on termination of such liability and prohibiting the use of capital accrued in accordance with such a scheme for the acquisition of residential property occupied by the owner unless the property is situated within the territory of that Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by introducing and maintaining the provisions for complementary pensions in Paragraphs 79 to 99 of the Federal Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and Article 18 EC, in so far as those provisions:






—


deny cross-border workers and their spouses the right to the savings pension bonus, unless they are fully liable to tax in that Member State;










—


prohibit cross-border workers from using the subsidised capital for the acquisition or construction of an owner-occupied dwelling unless the property is situated in Germany, and










—


provide that the bonus be reimbursed on termination of full liability to tax in that Member State;














2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
Case C-457/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Construction products — National approval procedure — Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-implementation — Article 228 EC — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Subsequent extension — Not permissible)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approval, building materials, technical specification








C_2009267EN.01001201.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/12





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-457/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Construction products - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determination during the pre-litigation procedure - Subsequent extension - Not permissible)
2009/C 267/20
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, acting as Agent, N. Ruiz and C. Farinhas, advogados)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2005 in Case C-432/02 — Application for a penalty payment to be imposed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


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






(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.
Case C-76/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409/EEC — Spring hunting — Prohibition — Derogation from the system of protection — Condition that there be no other satisfactory solution — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Malta, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, environmental protection, hunting regulations, protection of animal life








C_2009267EN.01001601.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/16





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
(Case C-76/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409/EEC - Spring hunting - Prohibition - Derogation from the system of protection - Condition that there be no ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Legitimate expectations)
2009/C 267/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, D. Lawunmi and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, D. Mangion, acting as Agents and J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Failure to comply with the criteria laid down by the Directive for the grant of a derogation authorising hunting in spring of quail and turtle doves

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by authorising the opening of a hunting season for quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during the spring migration period in the years 2004 to 2007, without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, in respect of 2004 to 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003, and, in respect of 2007, by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case F-74/09: Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Gowitzke v Europol
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, Europol, action by staff, personnel administration, professional career








C_2009267EN.01008501.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/85





Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Gowitzke v Europol
(Case F-74/09)
2009/C 267/154
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Werner Siegfried Gowitzke (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of Europol of 5 June 2009 rejecting the applicant's claim to have his classification changed to grade 5, step 1

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision of Europol rejecting the applicant's claim to have his classification changed to grade 5, step 1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case F-16/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v European Parliament (Officials — Procedure for the award of merit points at the European Parliament — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Statement of reasons given in the course of the procedure)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, promotion








C_2009297EN.01003501.xml










5.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/35





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v European Parliament
(Case F-16/08) (1)

(Officials - Procedure for the award of merit points at the European Parliament - Infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Statement of reasons given in the course of the procedure)
2009/C 297/52
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision to award the applicant two merit points for the years 2004 and 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the action in so far as it is directed against the decision of the European Parliament of 4 June 2007 awarding Mr Behmer two merit points in respect of the year 2004;










2.


annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 26 June 2007 awarding Mr Behmer two merit points in respect of the year 2006;










3.


orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Behmer;










4.


orders Mr Behmer to bear one half of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 116, of 09.05.2008 p. 32.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 827/2009 of 10 September 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common agricultural policy, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2009240EN.01001201.xml










11.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 240/12








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 827/2009
of 10 September 2009
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


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

Whereas:

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


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 September 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.




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







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MK 


37,2 




XS 


31,8 




ZZ 


34,5 




0707 00 05 


TR 


72,7 




ZZ 


72,7 




0709 90 70 


TR 


102,7 




ZZ 


102,7 




0805 50 10 


AR 


143,1 




UY 


71,8 




ZA 


112,5 




ZZ 


109,1 




0806 10 10 


IL 


143,8 




TR 


102,0 




ZZ 


122,9 




0808 10 80 


AR 


124,5 




BR 


70,4 




CL 


82,3 




NZ 


87,5 




US 


85,9 




ZA 


76,0 




ZZ 


87,8 




0808 20 50 


AR 


160,8 




CN 


61,6 




TR 


87,5 




ZA 


74,3 




ZZ 


96,1 




0809 30 


TR 


114,0 




US 


212,2 




ZZ 


163,1 




0809 40 05 


IL 


126,5 




TR 


78,6 




ZZ 


102,6 






(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-199/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer — Contractual limitation — Multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event — Selection of the legal representative by the insurer)
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective interest, contract terms, insurance, insurance claim, interpretation of the law, lawyer, right to justice








C_2009267EN.01001901.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/19





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG
(Case C-199/08) (1)

(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer - Contractual limitation - Multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event - Selection of the legal representative by the insurer)
2009/C 267/32
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dr. Erhard Eschig

Defendant: UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 4(1), of Council Directive 87/344/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Clause contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer enabling it, in the case of an accident in which a large number of insured persons suffer losses as a result of the same event, to choose a legal representative, and thereby limiting the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (‘mass torts clause’).

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not permitting the legal expenses insurer to reserve the right, where a large number of insured persons suffer loss as a result of the same event, itself to select the legal representative of all the insured persons concerned.


(1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5606 — UNIQA/Veneto Banca/JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, financial services, insurance company, life assurance, merger control








C_2009216EN.01000401.xml










10.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5606 — UNIQA/Veneto Banca/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 216/02
On 31 August 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 Regulation (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:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5606. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.