do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010074EN.01000901.xml










24.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 March 2010
2010/C 74/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3519




JPY


Japanese yen


122,16




DKK


Danish krone


7,4405




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90050




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7285




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4321




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0420




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,442




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


264,61




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7081




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8952




RON


Romanian leu


4,0725




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0863




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4742




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3777




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4937




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9174




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,8948




KRW


South Korean won


1 537,15




ZAR


South African rand


9,9152




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2285




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2605




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 328,89




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4876




PHP


Philippine peso


61,632




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8828




THB


Thai baht


43,700




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4081




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9224




INR


Indian rupee


61,5860






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5824 — BC Partners/Spotless) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, polishing and scouring preparations, special chemicals








C_2010074EN.01001601.xml










24.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5824 — BC Partners/Spotless)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 74/09






1.


On 15 March 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 undertaking CIE Management II Limited (‘CIEM’, Guernsey), general partner and manager of BC European Capital VIII (‘BC’, Guernsey), ultimately owned by BC Partners Holdings Limited (‘BC Partners’, Guernsey) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Spotless Group SAS (‘Spotless’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for BC Partners: private equity company, manager and general partner of BC Funds. The firm operates as an integrated team through offices in Europe and North America to acquire and develop businesses and create value in partnership with management,










—


for BC: private equity fund,










—


for Spotless: manufacturer of laundry care products, household care products, shoes care products, glass lens cleaners and plant & pet care 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.5824 — BC Partners/Spotless, 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’).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 250/2010 of 24 March 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farine de Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence (PGI))
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, cereal flour, designation of origin, location of production, product designation








L_2010079EN.01000501.xml










25.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/5








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 250/2010
of 24 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Farine de Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence (PGI))


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, France’s application to register the name ‘Farine de Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection pursuant to 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, 24 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





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

(2)  
            OJ C 185, 7.8.2009, 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

FRANCE
Farine de Petit Épeautre de Haute Provence (PGI)
Case T-130/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark incorporating the word eliza — Earlier Community word mark ELISE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), domestic market, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01003302.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/33





Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)
(Case T-130/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark incorporating the word eliza - Earlier Community word mark ELISE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 134/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eliza Corporation (Beverly, United States) (represented by: R. Köbbing, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Went Computing Consultancy Group BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1244/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Went Computing Consultancy Group BV and Eliza Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eliza Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Went Computing Consultancy Group BV.






(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
Case T-423/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Inter-Nett 2000 v OHIM — Unión de Agricoltores (HUNAGRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark HUNAGRO — Earlier Community figurative mark UNIAGRO — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hungary, action for annulment (EU), agricultural production, originating product, quality label, trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01003202.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/32





Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Inter-Nett 2000 v OHIM — Unión de Agricoltores (HUNAGRO)
(Case T-423/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark HUNAGRO - Earlier Community figurative mark UNIAGRO - Partial refusal to register - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 134/54
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 kft) (Mór, Hungary) (represented by: E. Petruska, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially P. Sipos, subsequently P. Sipos and O. Montalto, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Agricoltores, SA (El Ejido, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Unión de Agricoltores, SA and Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Inter-Nett 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 kft) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313 of 6.12.2008.
Case T-428/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Berenschot Groep v Commission
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrative transparency, equal treatment, ordinance, provision of services, tendering, third country








C_2010134EN.01005004.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/50





Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Berenschot Groep v Commission
(Case T-428/09) (1)

2010/C 134/83

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, environmental protection, land transport








C_2010074EN.01000301.xml










24.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/3





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 74/02






Date of adoption of the decision


19.11.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 517/09




Member State


United Kingdom




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Green Bus Fund




Legal basis


Section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: GBP 30 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


5.11.2009-31.3.2011




Economic sectors


Other land transport




Name and address of the granting authority







Department for Transport




Zone 3/11 Great Minster House




76 Marsham Street




London




SW1P 3DR




UNITED KINGDOM








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Case T-6/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Hansen v European Commission (Action for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Greenland, action for annulment (EU), health care, illness, radioactivity, therapeutics, worker with disabilities








C_2010134EN.01003502.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/35





Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Hansen v European Commission
(Case T-6/09) (1)

(Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2010/C 134/60
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bent Hansen (Aarslev, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the action










2.


Orders Mr Bent Hansen to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case T-516/08: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eriksen v Commission (Action for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), health care, irradiation, occupational disease, older worker, radioactivity








C_2010134EN.01003402.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/34





Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eriksen v Commission
(Case T-516/08) (1)

(Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2010/C 134/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (Ebeltoft, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Heinz Helmuth Eriksen to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case T-5/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Lind v Commission (Action for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Greenland, action for annulment (EU), adoption of a law by vote, damages, liability of the State, public health, transport accident








C_2010134EN.01003501.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/35





Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Lind v Commission
(Case T-5/09) (1)

(Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2010/C 134/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Brigit Lind (Greve, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Brigit Lind to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case T-145/10: Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), catering industry, foodstuff, hotel industry, packaging, storage, trade-mark law








C_2010148EN.01004001.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/40





Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
(Case T-145/10)
2010/C 148/67
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Solae Holdings LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Délitaste S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale d’Aliments (Thessaloniki, Greece)

Form of order sought







—


Deem the present appeal and attached documents to have been duly filed;










—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2009 in case R 92/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





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 figurative mark “alpha taste”, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 39 and 43

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the mark “ALPHA”, for goods in class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially admitted 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 found that there was only a partial likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 251/2010 of 24 March 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb (PDO))
Date: 2010-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, designation of origin, fruit, location of production, product designation








L_2010079EN.01000701.xml










25.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/7








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 251/2010
of 24 March 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb (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) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection pursuant to 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, 24 March 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





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

(2)  
            OJ C 189, 12.8.2009, p. 29.




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

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

UNITED KINGDOM
Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb (PDO)