do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5715 — Leisure Park Holdings/Criteria Caixa Corp/Activos Port Aventura) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: company with share capital, economic concentration, exchange of information, leisure park, merger control








C_2009301EN.01000302.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5715 — Leisure Park Holdings/Criteria Caixa Corp/Activos Port Aventura)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/05
On 2 December 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 32009M5715. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-436/07 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2009 — Giannopoulos v Council (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Request for reclassification — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), administrative procedure, administrator, competition (EU), recruitment, staff assessment








C_2010037EN.01003401.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/34





Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2009 — Giannopoulos v Council
(Case T-436/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Request for reclassification - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
2010/C 37/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06 Giannopoulos v Council, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the appeal;










2.


orders Mr Nikos Giannopoulos and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs in connection with the present instance.






(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5586 — Sita/Paprec/FPR) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, plastics, waste recycling








C_2009301EN.01003301.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/33





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5586 — Sita/Paprec/FPR)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/17






1.


On 3 December 2009, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which Sita France (France), controlled by Suez Environnement, and Paprec Plastiques (France), controlled by Paprec France, a member of the Paprec group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation joint control of France Plastiques Recyclage SAS (‘FPR’) (France), a company engaged in the processing of plastic bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Sita France: active in the sector of waste recycling involving the collection and treatment of waste,










—


Paprec Plastiques: active in the recycling of waste, and particularly of plastic.














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.5586 — Sita/Paprec/FPR, 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.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 11 December 2009 at 15.00 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.350 — Microsoft — Rapporteur: France
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), browser, dominant position, information technology industry, operating system, opinion, restriction on competition, sale








C_2010036EN.01000401.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 11 December 2009 at 15.00 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.350 — Microsoft
Rapporteur: France
2010/C 36/04






1.


The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns as to the compatibility with Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement of Microsoft’s behaviour as expressed in the draft decision communicated to the Advisory Committee.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Microsoft are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission in its draft decision.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Microsoft and the observations submitted by interested third parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5667 — ACE/FTQ/FSI/Mecachrome) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: company with share capital, economic concentration, electronic component, exchange of information, merger control








C_2009301EN.01000301.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5667 — ACE/FTQ/FSI/Mecachrome)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/04
On 3 December 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 French 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 32009M5667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 July 2009 concerning a draft decision in case COMP/39.396 – Calcium Carbide
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), dominant position, fine, metallurgical industry, opinion, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2009301EN.01001501.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/15





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 July 2009 concerning a draft decision in case COMP/39.396 – Calcium Carbide
2009/C 301/12






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2006 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1237/2009 of 11 December 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Marrone di Caprese Michelangelo (PDO))
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, nut, originating product, product designation








L_2009332EN.01004601.xml










17.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 332/46








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1237/2009
of 11 December 2009
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Marrone di Caprese Michelangelo (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Marrone di Caprese Michelangelo’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the Register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 2009.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 112, 16.5.2009, p. 17.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Marrone di Caprese Michelangelo (PDO)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5679 — Boreas Holdings/Centrica Renewable Energy Limited/Glid Wind Farms) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electrical energy, exchange of information, merger control, wind energy








C_2009301EN.01000201.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5679 — Boreas Holdings/Centrica Renewable Energy Limited/Glid Wind Farms)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/02
On 4 December 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 32009M5679. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-502/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010051EN.01003502.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/35





Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)
(Case T-502/09)
2010/C 51/68
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Inovis, Inc. (Alpharetta, United States) (represented by: R. Black and B. Ladas, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonaecom — Serviços de Communicações, S.A. (Maia, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2009 in case R 1691/2008-1;










—


Direct the Board of Appeal of the defendant to register the application for the Community trade mark; and










—


Order the defendant to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “INOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42

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: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “NOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly: (i) ignored the clear differences between the respective goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned, including that it erroneously considered that the earlier mark covered classes 9 and 42, whereas registration for such classes was refused by the Portuguese Trade mark Office, and that, in any event, such registration was not substantiated during the proceedings; (ii) ignored the clear conceptual differences between the trade marks concerned; and (iii) held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5642 — SGGF/TRAKYA/SGGE) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, glass industry, merger control








C_2009301EN.01000202.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5642 — SGGF/TRAKYA/SGGE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/03
On 3 December 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 32009M5642. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-515/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Estonia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, mining extraction, national implementing measure, prevention of pollution, public awareness campaign, public health, waste management








C_2010063EN.01002501.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/25





Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-515/09)
2010/C 63/40
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;










—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 May 2008.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.
Case C-513/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, electricity storage device, environmental protection, marketing, marketing restriction, national implementing measure, quality of the environment, waste management








C_2010037EN.01002502.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/25





Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-513/09)
2010/C 37/32
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/66/EC expired on 26 September 2008. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 266, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1238/2009 of 11 December 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio (PDO)]
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, fruit vegetable, originating product, product designation








L_2009332EN.01004801.xml










17.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 332/48








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1238/2009
of 11 December 2009
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the Register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 December 2009.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 111, 15.5.2009, p. 21.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Pomodorino del Piennolo del Vesuvio (PDO)