do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5744 — Toray/TCC/JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, man-made fibre, merger control, petrochemicals, plastics industry, research and development, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010025EN.01001702.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/17





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5744 — Toray/TCC/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/08
On 26 January 2010, 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 32010M5744. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5723 — Warburg Pincus/Novo/Archimedes Pharma JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, health care profession, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010025EN.01001802.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/18





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5723 — Warburg Pincus/Novo/Archimedes Pharma JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/10
On 22 January 2010, 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 32010M5723. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5739 — EQT V/Springer Science + Business Media) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, publishing, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010025EN.01001801.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/18





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5739 — EQT V/Springer Science + Business Media)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/09
On 26 January 2010, 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 32010M5739. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5780 — Allianz/ING/Allee Center) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial services, insurance, merger control, property market, shopping centre








C_2010025EN.01002801.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/28





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5780 — Allianz/ING/Allee Center)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/14






1.


On 21 January 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Allianz SE (‘Allianz’, Germany) and ING Real Estate Development International B.V. (‘ING REDI’, the Netherlands), belonging to the ING group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Allee Center Kft (‘Allee Center’, Hungary) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Allianz: insurance and financial services,










—


for ING REDI: financing and development of real estate,










—


for Allee Center: operation of the Allee Shopping Center in central Budapest.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (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), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5780 — Allianz/ING/Allee Center, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-54/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01001801.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/18





Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)
(Case C-54/10 P)
2010/C 113/27
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.
The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Invitation to submit comments on the proposal for a revised Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on motor vehicle sales and repair agreements
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition law, disclosure of information, drafting of EU law, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle industry, vertical agreement








C_2010025EN.01002701.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/27





Invitation to submit comments on the proposal for a revised Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on motor vehicle sales and repair agreements
2010/C 25/13
Block exemptions relieve companies from the need to analyse individually whether certain categories of agreements comply with EU rules on restrictive business practices (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — TFEU). The current Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 is due to expire in May 2010.
All citizens and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. Contributions are particularly sought from stakeholders having direct experience with the application of the block exemption to the motor vehicle sector, such as the business community and consumer associations.
The Public Consultation ends on 10 February 2010.
Contributions can be submitted by e-mail or post to the addresses indicated in the Internet under:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_motor_vehicles/index.html
Case C-56/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100)
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01001901.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/19





Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100)
(Case C-56/10 P)
2010/C 113/29
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 38(2) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the Board of Appeal was justified in requesting that a statement be submitted disclaiming exclusive rights to the figures 100 and 300.
The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the elements in respect of which a statement disclaiming exclusive rights was requested to be submitted are descriptive.
The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c), Article 38(2) or Article 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or all of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5762 — Innolux/Chi Mei/TPO) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, new technology, screen, telecommunications equipment








C_2010025EN.01002901.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/29





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5762 — Innolux/Chi Mei/TPO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/15






1.


On 22 January 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings InnoLux Display Corporation (‘InnoLux’, Taiwan), Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (‘Chi Mei’, Taiwan) and TPO Displays Corporation (‘TPO’, Taiwan) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the EC Merger Regulation by way of exchange of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


InnoLux: manufacturing of LCD panels and finished non-branded products containing LCD panels (essentially computer monitors);










—


Chi Mei: manufacturing of LCD panels;










—


TPO: manufacturing of LCD panels.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5762 — Innolux/Chi Mei/TPO, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5685 — Louis Dreyfus/Fin Lov/SBM/Mangas Gaming) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, cereals, disclosure of information, distributive trades, economic concentration, gaming establishment, hotel profession, merger control, raw material, real estate business, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010025EN.01001701.xml










2.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/17





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5685 — Louis Dreyfus/Fin Lov/SBM/Mangas Gaming)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 25/07
On 27 January 2010, 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 32010M5685. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-55/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01001802.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/18





Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)
(Case C-55/10 P)
2010/C 113/28
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.
The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-53/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2010 — Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG, Intervener: Merck KG aA
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, building permit, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard, interpretation of the law








C_2010113EN.01001702.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2010 — Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG, Intervener: Merck KG aA
(Case C-53/10)
2010/C 113/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Land Hessen

Defendant: Franz Mücksch OHG

Intervener: Merck KG aA

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, (1) most recently amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (2) — the Seveso II Directive — to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States’ obligations contained therein, in particular the obligation to ensure that their land-use policies and the procedures for implementing those policies take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between the establishments covered by the directive and buildings of public use, are addressed to planners who have to take decisions on land-use by weighing up the public and private interests affected, or are they also addressed to the planning permission authorities who have to take a non-discretionary decision on the authorisation of a project in an already built-up area?










2.


If Article 12(1) of the Seveso II Directive is also addressed to the planning permission authorities who have to take a non-discretionary decision on the authorisation of a project in an already built-up area:
Do the abovementioned obligations include the prohibition on authorising the siting of a building of public use which fails to maintain — as required by the principles applicable to overall planning — an appropriate distance from an existing establishment, where there are already several comparable buildings of public use close to the establishment, where the operator does not — as a result of the new project — have to reckon with additional requirements concerning the limitation of the consequences of an accident, and where the requirements relating to healthy living and working conditions are satisfied?










3.


If the answer to this question is in the negative:
Does a legislative provision under which it is mandatory to authorise the siting of a building of public use in the circumstances set out in the previous question sufficiently take into account the need to maintain distances?






(1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 311, p. 1.
Case T-48/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09, Meister v OHIM
Date: 2010-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), professional career, promotion, rights of civil servants, staff assessment








C_2010100EN.01005501.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/55





Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09, Meister v OHIM
(Case T-48/10 P)
2010/C 100/81
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM by which the appellant’s action was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the action at first instance was necessary on the ground that the facts are directly materially connected with the subject-matter of the previous Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08, which at the time the action was brought had not been decided. The appellant claims that the dismissal from the outset of Case F-17/09 as inadmissible without an oral hearing infringes the guarantee of the right to be heard in Article 6 ECHR. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed its request for a stay of proceedings in view of an appeal brought against the judgment in Case F-37/08. Finally, it complains that the court of first instance’s assessment of the subject-matter was incomplete an incorrect in law.