do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,00 % on 1 April 2010 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, interest








C_2010089EN.01000201.xml










7.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/2





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

6 April 2010
2010/C 89/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3396




JPY


Japanese yen


126,04




DKK


Danish krone


7,4441




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88240




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6630




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4325




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0124




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,295




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


265,28




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7076




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8349




RON


Romanian leu


4,0940




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0243




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4521




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3408




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4030




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9195




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,8721




KRW


South Korean won


1 504,51




ZAR


South African rand


9,7333




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,1438




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2717




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 125,98




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3035




PHP


Philippine peso


60,190




RUB


Russian rouble


39,2735




THB


Thai baht


43,370




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3662




MXN


Mexican peso


16,4160




INR


Indian rupee


59,5520






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

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-163/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), medical device, trade-mark law








C_2010161EN.01004601.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/46






Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)
(Case T-163/10)
(2010/C 161/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)

Form of order sought







—


Uphold the appeal;










—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;










—


Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings.





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 ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 292/2010 of 7 April 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010088EN.01001101.xml










8.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 88/11








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 292/2010
of 7 April 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


IL 


160,8 




JO 


96,4 




MA 


143,8 




TN 


131,6 




TR 


133,9 




ZZ 


133,3 




0707 00 05 


JO 


92,1 




MA 


106,5 




TR 


134,8 




ZZ 


111,1 




0709 90 70 


MA 


71,9 




TR 


102,7 




ZZ 


87,3 




0805 10 20 


EG 


54,6 




IL 


55,9 




MA 


45,0 




TN 


47,0 




TR 


67,7 




ZZ 


54,0 




0805 50 10 


IL 


66,0 




TR 


60,4 




ZA 


71,7 




ZZ 


66,0 




0808 10 80 


AR 


94,0 




BR 


83,8 




CA 


101,3 




CL 


90,8 




CN 


83,9 




MK 


23,6 




US 


131,3 




UY 


74,3 




ZA 


79,7 




ZZ 


84,7 




0808 20 50 


AR 


94,6 




CL 


111,5 




CN 


52,3 




ZA 


102,5 




ZZ 


90,2 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5738 — Commerzbank/Conergy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy technology, exchange of information, financial services, merger control, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2010089EN.01001001.xml










7.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5738 — Commerzbank/Conergy)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 89/06






1.


On 26 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 Commerzbank AG (Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Conergy AG (Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Commerzbank AG: Offers the full range of financial services,










—


for Conergy AG: Is a solar energy company that manufactures and distributes products and system solutions in the field of photovoltaic. It develops big projects in the field of renewable energy.














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.5738 — Commerzbank/Conergy, 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-162/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland made on 7 April 2010 — Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and the Attorney General
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, copyright, cultural object, hiring, hotel industry, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, television








C_2010161EN.01002801.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/28






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland made on 7 April 2010 — Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and the Attorney General
(Case C-162/10)
(2010/C 161/36)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd

Defendant: Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred







(i)


Is a hotel operator which provides in guest bedrooms televisions and/or radios to which it distributes a broadcast signal a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of a phonogram which may be played in a broadcast for the purposes of Article 8(2) of Codified Directive 2006/115/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 12th December 2006?










(ii)


If the answer to paragraph (i) is in the affirmative, does Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC oblige Member States to provide a right to payment of equitable remuneration from the hotel operator in addition to equitable remuneration from the broadcaster for the playing of the phonogram?










(iii)


If the answer to paragraph (i) is in the affirmative, does Article 10 of Directive 2006/115/EC permit Member States to exempt hotel operators from the obligation to pay ‘a single equitable remuneration’ on the grounds of ‘private use’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(a)?










(iv)


Is a hotel operator which provides in a guest bedroom apparatus (other than a television or radio) and phonograms in physical or digital form which may be played on or heard from such apparatus a ‘user’ making a ‘communication to the public’ of the phonograms within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC?










(v)


If the answer to paragraph (iv) is in the affirmative, does Article 10 of Directive 2006/115/EC permit Member States to exempt hotel operators from the obligation to pay ‘a single equitable remuneration’ on the grounds of ‘private use’ within the meaning of Article 10(1)(a) of Directive 2006/115/EC?






(1)  Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version)
OJ L 376, p. 28
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5801 — KKR/Hans-Peter Wild/Wild Group) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, disclosure of information, economic concentration, financial management, food industry, investment company, merger control, private investment, restrictive-practice authorisation, shareholding








C_2010089EN.01000102.xml










7.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5801 — KKR/Hans-Peter Wild/Wild Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 89/02
On 25 March 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 32010M5801. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-167/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), document, provision of documents, services company








C_2010161EN.01004701.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/47






Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-167/10)
(2010/C 161/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/psi — Ares (2010)43764- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the position taken by the Directorate-General for Informatics in its letter of 18 September 2009, following the applicant’s initial request, dated 14 August 2009, as concerns access to all requests for quotation (RfQs) pertaining to Lot 3A of ESP-DESIS;










—


Annul the decision of 11 March 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/MIB/rc/psi — Ares(2010)131966- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the positions taken by the Directorate-General (DG) for Informatics, by the Publications Office of the European Union (OP, previously OPOCE) and by the Budget DG in their respective letters of 11 December 2009, following the applicant’s initial requests, dated 9 October 2009, as concerns access to all RfQs pertaining to all lots of the contracts ESP, ESP-DIMA and ESP-DESIS(dealt by Informatics DG), OPOCE’s Framework Contracts No 6011, 6102, 6103, 6020, 10042, 6121, 6031, 10030 and DG BUDGET’s Framework Contract No BUDG/O101;










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with its application; even if the current application is rejected.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the regulation No 1049/2001 by not carrying out a concrete, individual examination of the documents referred to in the request for access in order to assess whether the exceptions relied on applied or whether a partial access could be granted. Moreover, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Commission with regards to the protection of the economic policy of the EU, the protection of the commercial interests and the public security reasons should be rejected as wholly unfounded as the reasons relied on by the Commission are, in the applicant’s view, general and abstract in nature and do not show that the Commission undertook a specific individual examination of the content of the requested documents.
Case C-177/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2010 — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, civil service, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, interprofessional agreement, work contract, working time








C_2010179EN.01001602.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/16






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2010 — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía
(Case C-177/10)
(2010/C 179/27)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francisco Javier Rosado Santana

Defendant: Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

Questions referred







1.


Is [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, if the Constitutional Court of a Member State has ruled that the establishment of different rights for temporary civil servants and career civil servants of that State might not be contrary to its Constitution, that necessarily means that the directive is excluded from applying in the sphere of that State’s civil service?










2.


Is Directive 1999/70 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national court from interpreting the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in a manner which generally excludes from their scope the placing of temporary civil servants and career civil servants on an equal footing?










3.


Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a refusal to take into account as length of service, in attaining the status of member of the permanent staff, previous periods of service as a temporary employee, specifically for the purposes of remuneration, grading and career advancement in the civil service?










4.


Does Clause 4 require an interpretation of the national legislation to the effect that it does not exclude from the calculation of length of service of civil servants periods worked under a temporary employment relationship?










5.


Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that, even though the rules of a public selection process were published and were not contested by the applicant, the national court must examine whether those rules are contrary to the Community legislation and, in that case, must the national court refrain from applying those rules or the national provision on which they are based in so far as they conflict with that clause?






(1)  OJ L 175, p. 43
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5661 — Abbott/Solvay Pharmaceuticals) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, health care profession, medical diagnosis, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010089EN.01000101.xml










7.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5661 — Abbott/Solvay Pharmaceuticals)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 89/01
On 11 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 32010M5661. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.