do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-53/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 September 2010 — Hecq v Commission
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, damages, health care, redemption








C_2011030EN.01006902.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/69





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 September 2010 — Hecq v Commission
(Case F-53/10)
()
2011/C 30/138
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5975 — Lion Capital/Picard Groupe)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, exchange of information, frozen product, investment, merger control








C_2010238EN.01001101.xml










3.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5975 — Lion Capital/Picard Groupe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 238/06






1.


On 27 August 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 Lion Capital LLP (‘Lion Capital’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Picard Groupe SA (‘Picard’, France) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Lion Capital is a private equity investment manager with a focus on investments in companies that are engaged in the production and/or sale of consumer-branded goods. One of its portfolio companies, Findus, is active in the market for supply of frozen food to retailers,










—


Picard is active in the retail distribution of frozen food through its own distribution network of specialized shops operating under the Picard brand.














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.5975 — Lion Capital/Picard Groupe, 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-368/10: Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, equal treatment, exchange of information, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition








C_2010288EN.01006101.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/61






Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission
(Case T-368/10)
()
(2010/C 288/110)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Rubinetteria Cisal (Alzo Frazione di Pella, Italy) (represented by M. Pinnarò, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010;










—


alternatively, if the Court should not annul the fine imposed, reduction of the fine to a more appropriate sum;










—


an order that the Commission should pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission.
In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
I.   Infringement and misapplication of Articles 101 TFEU and 53 EEA
In this regard, it is claimed that the decision, in so far as it concerns Cisal, is quite wrong, for Cisal has played no part (even an unwitting part) in any cartel, having merely exchanged non-sensitive business information which was unreserved and (in almost every case) later than the decisions taken independently and already spreading on the market.
II.   Breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to consider that the role, involvement, responsibility, advantages etc. of and for each producer differed significantly from one to another. Specifically, the defendant has drawn no distinctions and does not explain why the maximum penalty is to be imposed on Cisal, given that the latter: (i) was never a member of one of the two associations (Michelangelo); (ii) never had bilateral contacts; (iii) did not take part in meetings at which all three products were considered (but only taps, cocks and fittings and ceramic ware) and (iv) had always had only an insignificant share of the market.
So far as the fixing of the fine is concerned, the applicant maintains that the Commission ought to have taken into account and determined the actual effect of the infringement on the market and the extent of the relevant geographic market, and to have taken account of Cisal’s actual economic ability to distort competition and of its specific weight.
The applicant alleges also that the basis used for computing the amount of the fine was incorrect, and that the Commission failed to have regard to mitigating circumstances.
Case F-73/10: Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Coedo Suárez v Council
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment, damage, indemnification








C_2010301EN.01006302.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/63





Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Coedo Suárez v Council
(Case F-73/10)
()
2010/C 301/101
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the defendant rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and his claim for compensation for material and non-material damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and, if necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the claim in full;










—


with regard to compensation for material damage, order the defendant to pay the sum, fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, of EUR 450 000, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment;










—


with regard to compensation for non-material damage, order the defendant, as the principal claim, properly to reinstate the applicant and to pay him a symbolic Euro or, in the alternative, to pay him the sum, fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, of EUR 300 000, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Case C-366/09: Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, accountant, audit, auditing, national implementing measure, professional ethics, professional qualifications








C_2010301EN.01001901.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/19





Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-366/09) (1)

()
2010/C 301/28
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.
Case T-472/08: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark 61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA — Earlier national word mark CACHAÇA 51 and earlier national figurative marks Cachaça 51 and Pirassununga 51 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01003601.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/36






Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA)
(Case T-472/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark 61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA - Earlier national word mark CACHAÇA 51 and earlier national figurative marks Cachaça 51 and Pirassununga 51 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2010/C 288/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Companhia Muller de Bebidas (represented by: G. Da Cunha Ferreira and I. Bairrão, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Missiato Industria e Comercio Ltda (Santa Rita Do Passa Quatro, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2008 (Case R 1687/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Muller de Bebidas and Missiato Industria e Comercio Ltda

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2008 (Case R 1687/2007-1).










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010238EN.01000501.xml










3.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 September 2010
2010/C 238/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2818




JPY


Japanese yen


107,81




DKK


Danish krone


7,4447




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83275




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3185




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2953




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,9010




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,710




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


285,03




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7087




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9767




RON


Romanian leu


4,2698




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9402




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4099




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3451




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9619




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7898




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7262




KRW


South Korean won


1 513,56




ZAR


South African rand


9,3090




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,7270




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2815




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 545,73




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0060




PHP


Philippine peso


57,558




RUB


Russian rouble


39,3880




THB


Thai baht


39,947




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2340




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7530




INR


Indian rupee


59,8920






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5977 — Faurecia/Plastal)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2010238EN.01001001.xml










3.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5977 — Faurecia/Plastal)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 238/05






1.


On 26 August 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Faurecia Exteriors GmbH (Germany), a subsidiary of Faurecia SA (‘Faurecia’, France) controlled by PSA Peugeot Citroën SA (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Plastal GmbH (Germany) by way of purchase of its assets and of Plastal Spain SAU (Spain, both together ‘Plastal’) by way of purchase of its shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Faurecia: engineering, production and supply of automotive equipment, in particular of vehicle seating, interiors, front ends and exhaust systems (worldwide),










—


for Plastal: engineering, production and supply of thermoplastic engineered plastic components for the automotive industry, in particular of bumpers and front-end carriers (EEA wide).














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.5977 — Faurecia/Plastal, 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’).
Joined Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Huta Buczek v Commission
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, State aid, action for annulment, control of State aid, iron and steel industry, redemption








C_2010288EN.01006602.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/66






Order of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Huta Buczek v Commission
(Joined Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08) (1)

()
(2010/C 288/119)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that Case T-440/07 be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.
Case C-433/10 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2010 by Volker Mauerhofer against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2010 in Case T-515/08: Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), contractual liability, damage, damages








C_2010301EN.01001701.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/17





Appeal brought on 3 September 2010 by Volker Mauerhofer against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2010 in Case T-515/08: Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission
(Case C-433/10 P)
()
2010/C 301/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Volker Mauerhofer (represented by: J. Schartmüller, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


rule definitively on the substance and annul the contested measure or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule again on the case and;










—


exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award him the sum of EUR 5 500 by way of compensation for the financial loss resulting from the unlawful conduct in adopting the contested measure and from the lack of appropriate instructions to the team leader (expert 1);










—


order that the Framework Contract Support Team should produce the Contractor Assessment Form submitted concerning the project subject of the dispute;










—


order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:






—


Distortion of facts concerning the linguistic review of the appellant's contribution;










—


Inadequate analysis of the grounds of the Order under appeal concerning the linguistic review;










—


Inadequate analysis of the issue concerning the defendant's performance;










—


Unlawful assumption that the contested decision does not affect the position of the Appellant as a third party;










—


Unlawful assumption that the contested measure brought about no distinct change in the Appellant's legal position;










—


Unlawful assumption that the contested measure has not been adopted by the Defendant in the exercise of its powers as a public authority;










—


Unlawful assumption that the contested measure was formalised in a timely and correct manner;










—


Unlawful breach of the interests of the Appellant by not following prescribed procedures;










—


Breach of the general community law principle of equal treatment and breach of the fundamental rights of the Appellant;










—


Unlawful assumption of a non-substantial change in the distribution of days among experts;










—


Breach of the general community rights to a fair hearing.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 783/2010 of 3 September 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Queso de Flor de Guía/Queso de Media Flor de Guía/Queso de Guía (PDO)]
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, designation of origin, location of production, product designation, soft cheese








L_2010234EN.01000301.xml










4.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 234/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 783/2010
of 3 September 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Queso de Flor de Guía/Queso de Media Flor de Guía/Queso de Guía (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, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Queso de Flor de Guía/Queso de Media Flor de Guía/Queso de Guía’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under 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, 3 September 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





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

(2)  
            OJ C 315, 23.12.2009, p. 18.




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

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

SPAIN
Queso de Flor de Guía/Queso de Media Flor de Guía/Queso de Guía (PDO)
2010/480/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2010 of 3 September 2010 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia
Date: 2010-09-03
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Georgia, appointment of staff, cooperation policy, fact-finding mission, power of attorney, the EU's international role, working time








L_2010234EN.01001601.xml










4.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 234/16








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM Georgia/1/2010
of 3 September 2010
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia
(2010/480/CFSP)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Under Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (hereinafter the ‘PSC’), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purposes of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (hereinafter ‘EUMM Georgia’), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 16 September 2008, upon a proposal from the Secretary-General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EUMM/1/2008 (2) Mr Hansjörg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 15 September 2009.












(3)


On 31 July 2009, upon a proposal from the Secretary-General/High Representative, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2009 (3) extending the mandate of Mr Hansjörg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 15 September 2010.












(4)


On 30 June 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Hansjörg HABER as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia for an additional year, namely until 15 September 2011,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Hansjörg HABER as Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 15 September 2011.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 3 September 2010.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairman

W. STEVENS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 248, 17.9.2008, p. 26.

(2)  
            OJ L 319, 29.11.2008, p. 79.

(3)  
            OJ L 214, 19.8.2009, p. 40.