do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,00 % on 1 March 2010 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, interest








C_2010053EN.01000701.xml










3.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/7





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
1,00 % on 1 March 2010
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 March 2010
2010/C 53/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3548




JPY


Japanese yen


120,68




DKK


Danish krone


7,4423




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90635




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7316




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4628




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0485




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,770




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


266,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9147




RON


Romanian leu


4,1066




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0793




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4994




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4029




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5180




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9442




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9015




KRW


South Korean won


1 558,38




ZAR


South African rand


10,2774




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2485




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2700




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 600,11




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5796




PHP


Philippine peso


62,435




RUB


Russian rouble


40,5145




THB


Thai baht


44,346




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4253




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2100




INR


Indian rupee


62,2460






(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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5801 — KKR/Hans-Peter Wild/Wild Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial management, food industry, investment company, merger control, private investment, shareholding








C_2010053EN.01001101.xml










3.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5801 — KKR/Hans-Peter Wild/Wild Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 53/07






1.


On 23 February 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 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, L.P. (‘KKR’, USA) and Dr. Hans-Peter Wild (‘Hans-Peter Wild’, Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation joint control of the of the food flavourings business of the Wild Group by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: asset management and private equity investment,










—


for Dr. Hans-Peter Wild: shareholder of the Wild Group businesses,










—


For the Wild Group: production of natural ingredients for the food and beverage industry (including food flavourings), production and sale of specific beverages, and supply of industrial technologies to the food and beverage industry.














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.5801 — KKR/Hans-Peter Wild/Wild Group, 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 T-36/06: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission (State aid — Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale — Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid — Private investor test — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Serious difficulties)
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), bank, capital movement, control of State aid, share capital, tax relief








C_2010100EN.01003701.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/37





Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission
(Case T-36/06) (1)

(State aid - Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale - Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid - Private investor test - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Serious difficulties)
2010/C 100/56
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Land Hessen (Germany) (represented initially by H.-J. Freund and M. Holzhäuser, and subsequently by H.-J. Freund and S. Lehr, lawyers); and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3232 final of 6 September 2005 relating to the transfer of the Hessischer Investitionsfonds (Hessian Investment Fund) as a silent partnership contribution to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, the Land Hessen and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
Case T-107/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01003801.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/38





Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)
(Case T-107/10)
2010/C 134/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natura Cosméticos, SA (Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil)

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 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURAVIVA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5780 — Allianz/ING/Allee Center) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, disclosure of information, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, property market, restrictive-practice authorisation, shopping centre








C_2010053EN.01000101.xml










3.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5780 — Allianz/ING/Allee Center)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 53/01
On 17 February 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 32010M5780. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-105/07: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01003401.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/34





Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG)
(Case T-105/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2010/C 134/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MarketTools, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, A. González Hähnlein, O. Günzel and A. Wenninger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially S. Laitinen, subsequently G. Schneider and D. Botis, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA (Maia, Portugal) (represented by: T. Colaço Dias and J. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2007 (Case R 253/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA and MarketTools, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to rule on the action.










2.


The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.










3.


The intervener shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5777 — Drägerwerk/Dräger Medical) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, health care, holding company, medical device, medicine, merger control, new technology, provision of services








C_2010053EN.01000801.xml










3.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5777 — Drägerwerk/Dräger Medical)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 53/04






1.


On 23 February 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA (‘Drägerwerk’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Dräger Medical AG & Co. KG (‘Dräger Medical’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Drägerwerk is the holding company of the Dräger Group, which is active in the fields of medical and safety technology,










—


Dräger Medical develops, produces and distributes products, services and integrated system solutions for intensive and home care. The main focus is on the production of anaesthesia workstations, ventilation equipment, and patient monitors including equipment as well as services and maintenance of these products.














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.5777 — Drägerwerk/Dräger Medical, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5701 — VINCI/Cegelec) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrotechnology, energy grid, exchange of information, merger control, technology, transport infrastructure








C_2010053EN.01001001.xml










3.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5701 — VINCI/Cegelec)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 53/06






1.


On 24 February 2010 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the group VINCI (France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Cegelec (France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for VINCI: construction, concession of transport and energy facilities; electrical, mechanical and air conditioning engineering mainly in Europe,










—


for Cegelec: construction, installation and maintenance in the sectors of electrical, mechanical and air conditioning engineering worldwide.














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.5701 — VINCI/Cegelec, 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’).
Case T-100/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Nordzucker v Commission
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, action for annulment (EU), production aid, production refund, sugar, sugar levy, white sugar








C_2010113EN.01006701.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/67





Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Nordzucker v Commission
(Case T-100/10)
2010/C 113/100
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nordzucker AG (Brunswick, Germany) (represented by: M. Niestedt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009; (1)











—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its action:






—


Lack of competence of the Commission to adopt a regulation relating to production levies for sugar marketing years 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 since the legal basis for the regulation was one that is no longer in force;










—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as a different procedure for the adoption of the contested regulation should have been selected, and the participation rights of the Council and of the European Parliament have thus been disregarded;










—


Failure to have regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06 Zuckerfabrik Jülich and Others [2008] ECR I-3231 in so far as, in the contested regulation, the Commission arbitrarily also changed the ‘total amount of refunds’ parameter in the calculation of production levies, even though this parameter was not the object of the Court’s examination;










—


Infringement of the prohibition of retroactivity by the subsequent amendment — only introduced by Regulation No 1193/2009 — of the total amount of refunds for sugar marketing years that had already been completed.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).
Case T-538/08: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — KODI Diskontläden (inéa) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01004502.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/45





Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — KODI Diskontläden (inéa)
(Case T-538/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2010/C 113/73
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KODI Diskontläden GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 (Case R 744/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between KODI Diskontläden GmbH and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case C-116/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 3 March 2010 — Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines v Mr Pierre Feltgen (Administrator in the bankruptcy of the limited liability company BACINO CHARTER COMPANY S.A.), Bacino Charter Company S.A.
Date: 2010-03-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, maritime shipping, provision of services, turnover








C_2010113EN.01003302.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/33





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 3 March 2010 — Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines v Mr Pierre Feltgen (Administrator in the bankruptcy of the limited liability company BACINO CHARTER COMPANY S.A.), Bacino Charter Company S.A.
(Case C-116/10)
2010/C 113/52
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines

Defendants: Me Pierre Feltgen (Administrator in the bankruptcy of the limited liability company Bacino Charter Company S.A.), Bacino Charter Company S.A.

Question referred

May services provided by the owner of a vessel who, for reward, with a crew, makes it available for natural persons for the purpose of leisure travel on the high seas by those clients, be exempted under Article 15(5) of Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (1) where those services are considered to be both vessel hire services and transport services?


(1)  OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1.