do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5830 — Olympic/Aegean Airlines)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, provision of services








C_2010174EN.01001601.xml










1.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5830 — Olympic/Aegean Airlines)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 174/08






1.


On 24 June 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 Vassilakis Group of companies (‘Vassilakis’, Greece), Marfin Investment Group (‘Marfin’, Greece) and the Laskaridis Group of companies (‘Laskaridis’, Greece), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly merged company including the businesses of the previously independent Greek companies Aegean Airlines SA (‘Aegean Airlines’, Greece), Olympic Air SA (‘Olympic Air’, Greece), Olympic Handling SA (‘Olympic Handling’, Greece) and Olympic Engineering SA (‘Olympic Engineering’, Greece) (collectively ‘Olympic’, Greece) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Vassilakis: investments in car rental, car leasing, car import and car distribution, ground handling and aviation (through Aegean Airlines),










—


for Marfin: investments in food and beverage, shipping (notably through Attica Group, which owns Superfast Ferries and Blue Star Ferries), air transport (through Olympic Air), ground handling (through Olympic Handling), maintenance, repair and overhaul services (through Olympic Engineering), healthcare, real estate, IT & telecoms, tourism and leisure, and financial services,










—


for Laskaridis: Investments in aviation (through Aegean Airlines), ground handling, shipping and shipyards, tourism and real estate sectors,










—


for Aegean Airlines: provision of air transport of passengers and cargo,










—


for Olympic: Air transport of passengers and cargo, ground handling services and provision of maintenance, repair and overhaul services.














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.5830 — Olympic/Aegean Airlines, 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 F-97/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament (Civil service — Former member of the temporary staff — Occupational disease — Physical or mental harm — Duration of the procedure for the recognition of the occupational nature of the disease)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: action by staff, damage, damages, occupational disease, worker with disabilities








C_2010274EN.01003201.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/32





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament
(Case F-97/08) (1)

(Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Occupational disease - Physical or mental harm - Duration of the procedure for the recognition of the occupational nature of the disease)
2010/C 274/48
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision establishing the part of the partial permanent invalidity attributable to the occupational nature of a disease affecting the applicant at 20 %, as well as, in the alternative, an order against the defendant to pay a sum in damages for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Ms Füller-Tomlinson to bear all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 76.
Case T-63/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Cementir Italia v Commission (State aid — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Aid measure put into effect)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, energy industry, preferential price








C_2010221EN.01003702.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/37





Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Cementir Italia v Commission
(Case T-63/08) (1)

(State aid - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Aid measure put into effect)
2010/C 221/59
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cementir Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino and G. Barone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Conte, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision 2008/408/EC of the Commission of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application.










2.


Orders Cementir Italia Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.
Case C-393/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma (National legislation governing opening times and closing days of pharmacies — Exemption — Power of decision of the competent authorities)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, discretionary power, free competition, interpretation of the law, paid leave, pharmacy, provision of services, public service, trading hours








C_2010234EN.01000601.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma
(Case C-393/08) (1)

(National legislation governing opening times and closing days of pharmacies - Exemption - Power of decision of the competent authorities)
2010/C 234/08
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Emanuela Sbarigia

Defendants: Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio– Interpretation of Arts 49, 81 to 86, 152 and 153 EC — National legislation governing the opening hours and rota arrangements for pharmacies — Pharmacists forbidden to decline annual holiday closure or to remain open beyond the maximum limits set for opening hours

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio, made by decision of 21 May 2008, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
Case F-40/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Časta v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Request for a review — Obligation to state reasons — Professional experience required — Late submission of a certificate — Principle of equal treatment — Action for annulment — Action for damages)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, candidate, competition (EU), examination, fine, professional experience








C_2010274EN.01003202.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/32





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Časta v Commission
(Case F-40/09) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Request for a review - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience required - Late submission of a certificate - Principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
2010/C 274/49
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Radek Časta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Tahotná, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and M. L. Jelínek, acting as Agents.)

Re:

First, an application for annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in open competition EPSO/AD/107/07-LAW on account of the fact that the condition relating to 3 years’ experience in a senior management post was not met and secondly, an application for an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Ms Časta to bear all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009, p. 51
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5848 — Delta/Eneco/PVNED) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, exchange of information, merger control, natural gas








C_2010174EN.01001501.xml










1.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5848 — Delta/Eneco/PVNED)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 174/07






1.


On 25 June 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 Delta Energy BV (‘DE’, the Netherlands) belonging to the group Delta NV (‘Delta’, The Netherlands) and Eneco Energy Trade BV (‘EET’, The Netherlands) belonging to the group Eneco Holding NV (‘Eneco’, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of PVNED BV (‘PVNED’, The Netherlands) by restructuring PVNED in such a way that it will become a full function joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


DE/Delta: provision of multi-utility services, inter alia, in the electricity and natural gas sectors,










—


EET/Eneco: provision of multi-utility services, inter alia, in the electricity and natural gas sectors,










—


PVNED: provision of electricity balancing programs in the Netherlands and Belgium.














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.5848 — Delta/Eneco/PVNED, 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’).
The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2010 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 ( OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006 , p. 1))
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, EFTA countries, State aid, control of State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2010174EN.01001401.xml










1.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/14





The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2010

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1))

2010/C 174/06
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To get the applicable reference rate, appropriate margins have to be added in accordance with the State aid Guidelines. For the discount rate this means that the appropriate margin of 100 basis points has to be added to the base rate. The recovery rate will also normally be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate as foreseen in the Authority’s Decision No 789/08/COL of 17 December 2008 amending the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1).








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2010-


6,79


0,69


3,04
Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — M6 and TF1 v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid which the French Republic is intending to grant in favour of France Télévisions — Capital funding of EUR 150 million — Decision not to raise objections — Service of general economic interest — Criterion of proportionality — No serious difficulties)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment, advertising, audiovisual industry, infringement of EU law, television








C_2010221EN.01004102.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/41





Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — M6 and TF1 v Commission
(Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08) (1)

(State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid which the French Republic is intending to grant in favour of France Télévisions - Capital funding of EUR 150 million - Decision not to raise objections - Service of general economic interest - Criterion of proportionality - No serious difficulties)
2010/C 221/67
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: O. Freget, N. Chahid-Nouraï, R. Lazerges and M. Potel, lawyers); and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, and then by G. de Bergues and L. Butel, Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther, D. Tayar, A. Giraud and S. Snoeck, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA, and applications for an order that the Commission open a formal investigation procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Métropole télévision (M6) to bear its own costs in Case T-568/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;










3.


Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs in Case T-573/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;










4.


The French Republic and Canal + shall each bear their own costs in Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case C-358/09 P: Order of the Court of 1 July 2010 — DSV Road NV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Code — Import of diskettes originating in Thailand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties)
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, CCT duties, European Commission, Thailand, action for annulment, export licence, import, interpretation of the law, magnetic medium, tariff preference








C_2010288EN.01001601.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/16






Order of the Court of 1 July 2010 — DSV Road NV v European Commission
(Case C-358/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Customs Code - Import of diskettes originating in Thailand - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties)
(2010/C 288/25)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: DSV Road NV (represented by: A. Poelmans and G. Preckler, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Bouyon, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-219/07 DSV Road v Commission dismissing an application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 24 April 2007 informing the Belgian authorities that they might proceed with post-clearance recovery of import duties on diskettes originating in Thailand and that there were no grounds for granting remission of those duties (File reference: REC 05/02)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


DSV Road NV shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, of 05.12.2009.
Case C-316/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 July 2010 — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet
Date: 2010-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, protection of animals, transport safety








C_2010234EN.01002801.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 July 2010 — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet
(Case C-316/10)
()
2010/C 234/45
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Danske Svineproducenter

Defendant: Justitsministeriet

Question referred

Is the second paragraph of Article 249 EC [now the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU] and Article 37 of Council Regulation No 1/2005 (1) on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, and also Article 3(f) and (g), together with point 1.1(f) and point 1.2 of Chapter II, together with Part D of Chapter VII of Annex I to that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are precluded from adopting national rules which lay down detailed requirements for internal transport height, inspection height and loading density?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1)