do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,00 % on 1 October 2009 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, interest








C_2009237EN.01000401.xml










2.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/4





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
1,00 % on 1 October 2009
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 October 2009
2009/C 237/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4539




JPY


Japanese yen


130,78




DKK


Danish krone


7,4449




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91085




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1890




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5165




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4455




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,420




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


270,26




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7083




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2450




RON


Romanian leu


4,2688




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1750




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6539




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5601




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,2679




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0141




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0542




KRW


South Korean won


1 713,38




ZAR


South African rand


11,1161




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,9248




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2550




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 994,67




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0392




PHP


Philippine peso


68,414




RUB


Russian rouble


43,7294




THB


Thai baht


48,698




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5808




MXN


Mexican peso


19,7207




INR


Indian rupee


69,4380






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-324/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Estonia v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Action for annulment — Collegiality — Concept of stock — Circumstances in which stocks were built up — Statement of reasons — Sound administration — Good faith — Non-discrimination — Right of property — Proportionality)
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Estonia, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), common organisation of markets, sugar, surplus stock








C_2009282EN.01003702.xml










21.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/37





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Estonia v Commission
(Case T-324/05) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Collegiality - Concept of ‘stock’ - Circumstances in which stocks were built up - Statement of reasons - Sound administration - Good faith - Non-discrimination - Right of property - Proportionality)
2009/C 282/69
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: intially L. Visaggio and E. Randvere and subsequently by T. van Rijn, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and E. Randvere, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: intially E. Balode-Buraka, L. Ostrovska and K. Drēviņa, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;










3.


Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, of 29.10.2005.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 920/2009 of 2 October 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit








L_2009260EN.01000101.xml










3.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 260/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 920/2009
of 2 October 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 3 October 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 October 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 


29,4 




ZZ 


29,4 




0707 00 05 


TR 


127,2 




ZZ 


127,2 




0709 90 70 


TR 


110,1 




ZZ 


110,1 




0805 50 10 


AR 


81,0 




CL 


103,4 




TR 


91,1 




UY 


88,0 




ZA 


72,9 




ZZ 


87,3 




0806 10 10 


BR 


235,1 




EG 


159,5 




TR 


100,6 




US 


152,0 




ZZ 


161,8 




0808 10 80 


CL 


85,7 




NZ 


67,8 




US 


83,8 




ZA 


71,0 




ZZ 


77,1 




0808 20 50 


AR 


82,8 




CN 


33,7 




TR 


95,7 




ZA 


76,1 




ZZ 


72,1 






(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-388/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht lodged on 2 October 2009 — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)








C_2009312EN.01001901.xml










19.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht lodged on 2 October 2009 — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse
(Case C-388/09)
2009/C 312/31
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Joao Filipe da Silva Martins

Defendant: Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

Question referred

Is it compatible with the primary and/or secondary law of the European Community on freedom of movement and social security for migrant workers (in particular Articles 39 and 42 EC and Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) for a former worker who receives pensions from both his former State of employment and his home State and acquired an entitlement to care allowance in his former State of employment because he is reliant on care to forfeit the entitlement to care allowance after returning to his home State?


(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2
Case C-389/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, interprofessional agreement, professional association, social partners, temporary employment, working time








C_2010113EN.01001502.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social
(Case C-389/09)
2010/C 113/22
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Águeda María Sáenz Morales

Defendant: Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social
By Order of 20 January 2010 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the reference for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5621 — Univeg/Ciccolella/Subsidiaries of Univeg) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crop production, economic concentration, exchange of information, floriculture, fruit, marketing, merger control, vegetable








C_2009237EN.01002801.xml










2.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/28





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5621 — Univeg/Ciccolella/Subsidiaries of Univeg)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 237/07






1.


On 25 September 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) by which Univeg Holding B.V. (‘Univeg’, The Netherlands) controlled by CVC Capital Partners (‘CVC’, Luxembourg) and F.lli Cicolella S.p.a (‘Ciccolella’, Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control over Univeg Holding B.V.'s flower and plant activities (‘Univeg F&P’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking Univeg: production, import, export, packaging, handling and logistics of fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers, flowers bulbs, plants and related products, and convenience food,










—


for undertaking Ciccolella: production and sale of cut flowers and plants,










—


for undertaking Univeg F&P: production and sale of cut flowers and plants.














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.5621 — Univeg/Ciccolella/Subsidiaries of Univeg, 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.
Case T-385/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, leather industry, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2009282EN.01006101.xml










21.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/61





Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
(Case T-385/09)
2009/C 282/113
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Annco, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Freche et fils associés SARL (Paris, France)

Form of order sought







—


Declare the appeal well founded;










—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1;










—


Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1, in favour of the registration of the Community trade mark concerned for classes 18 and 25, in addition to class 35;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The mark “ANN TAYLOR LOFT”, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration of the mark “LOFT” for goods in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly relied on evidence and reasons on which the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment.
Notice concerning a request in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Action withdrawn — Request made by a Member State
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, sale








C_2009237EN.01002901.xml










2.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/29





Notice concerning a request in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Action withdrawn
Request made by a Member State
2009/C 237/08
On 3 June 2009, the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1).
The request, made by the Kingdom of Spain, concerns the production and sale of electricity in that country. The request was published in OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 37. The initial deadline was 4 September 2009. That deadline was extended until 4 October 2009 and the extension was published in OJ C 148, 30.6.2009, p. 23.
On 22 September 2009, the Spanish authorities withdrew the request, which should be considered null and void. There is therefore no need to decide whether or not Article 30(1) should apply to these sectors in Spain. Directive 2004/17/EC therefore continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable electricity generation or the sale (wholesale and retail) of electricity to be carried out in Spain and when they organise competitive tendering for the pursuit of such an activity in Spain.


(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5630 — MD Investors/Metaldyne) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, disclosure of information, economic concentration, investment transaction, merger control, metal product, motor vehicle industry, restrictive-practice authorisation, spare part, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2009237EN.01000302.xml










2.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5630 — MD Investors/Metaldyne)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 237/03
On 25 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 32009M5630. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-390/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, advertising, audiovisual co-production, distance selling, interpretation of the law








C_2009312EN.01002001.xml










19.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni
(Case C-390/09)
2009/C 312/32
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Reti Televisive Italiane SpA. (RTI)

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 18 and 18a of Directive 89/552/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, (2) to be regarded as being sufficiently precise and unconditional as to be capable, after the period for transposition has expired, of taking precedence over conflicting provisions of domestic law, of supplementing, on a correct interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, the relevant national provisions, and of being implemented by an administrative authority, such as AGCOM, which is invested with the power to implement regulations under national law?










2.


Are Articles 18 and 18a of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the mandatory minimum duration of 15 minutes applicable to teleshopping windows, any other form of teleshopping, including windows lasting more than 3 minutes but less than 15 minutes, must be classified as a “teleshopping spot” subject to the hourly limits applicable to advertising spots?










3.


Are Articles 1(c), 10, 11 and 18(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that announcements made by a broadcaster in connection with its own programmes and broadcast free of charge are to be regarded as advertising for the purposes of the rules governing the way in which messages are distinguished from the rest of the programme and advertising inserted in television broadcasts?










4.


Are Articles 1(c), 10, 11 and 18(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the institutional information and communication activities referred to in Italian Law No 150 of 7 June 2000, including messages of social value and messages of public interest, are to be regarded as advertising for the purposes of the rules governing the way in which advertising messages are distinguished from the rest of the programme and advertising inserted in television broadcasts?






(1)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 1997 L 265, p. 42.
Case T-388/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket)
Date: 2009-10-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009282EN.01006201.xml










21.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/62





Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Rosenruist v OHIM (Representation of two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket)
(Case T-388/09)
2009/C 282/115
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by S. Gonzáles Malabia and S. Rizzo, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 237/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The mark representing two curves crossed at one point inserted on a pocket for goods and services in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned lacked inherent distinctiveness.