do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010241EN.01000201.xml










8.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 241/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2010
2010/C 241/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2744




JPY


Japanese yen


106,86




DKK


Danish krone


7,4449




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83160




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3185




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2903




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8910




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,726




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


286,45




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7092




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9371




RON


Romanian leu


4,2919




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9267




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3982




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3286




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8992




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7663




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7179




KRW


South Korean won


1 500,26




ZAR


South African rand


9,2722




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,6550




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2820




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 493,73




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9850




PHP


Philippine peso


56,789




RUB


Russian rouble


39,2537




THB


Thai baht


39,740




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2011




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6156




INR


Indian rupee


59,6680






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5756 — DFDS/Norfolk)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, banking, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, merger control








C_2010241EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 241/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5756 — DFDS/Norfolk)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 241/01
On 17 June 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 32010M5756. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-396/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01005101.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/51





Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission
(Case T-396/10)
()
2010/C 301/81
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (Gozzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision.










—


In the alternative, annul the fine imposed or reduce the amount of the fine.










—


In the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine by granting the request to take account of the attenuating circumstance referred to in Section 29 of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines.










—


In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case. In particular, the applicant submits that the products referred to in the decision belong to three separate markets, that Zucchetti is present only on the taps market and that the Commission’s decision does not carry out a prior identification of the relevant market. The decision is also defective in terms of its assessment of the geographic extent of the market and the effects of the cartel on the operating conditions on the market.
The applicant adds that the reconstruction of the agreements and/or concerted practices which led the Commission to find that the applicant had participated in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU solely on account of its collusive behaviour in Italy is vitiated and does not state the reasons on which the finding is based, since it totally fails to show that the applicant was aware of the unlawful conduct engaged in by the other undertakings allegedly participating in the cartel.
Case T-112/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Icebreaker v OHIM — Gilmar (ICEBREAKER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER — Earlier national word mark ICEBERG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01003902.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/39






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Icebreaker v OHIM — Gilmar (ICEBREAKER)
(Case T-112/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ICEBREAKER - Earlier national word mark ICEBERG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2010/C 288/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Icebreaker Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: L. Prehn, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gilmar SpA (San Giovanni in Marignano, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 1536/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gilmar SpA and Icebreaker Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Icebreaker Ltd to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
Case T-411/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Laufen Austria v Commission
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for annulment, competition law, plumbing equipment








C_2010301EN.01005701.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/57





Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Laufen Austria v Commission
(Case T-411/10)
()
2010/C 301/91
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laufen Austria AG (Wilhelmsburg, Austria) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul in part Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010 with regard to the fine imposed on Laufen Austria (considered both individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario) for the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU; and consequently










—


reduce the fine imposed on Laufen Austria, considered individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the claim set out in the application, in so far as the Court deems it appropriate on the grounds stated or on other grounds which it may consider;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Laufen Austria.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.
It is maintained, in particular, that the decision at issue, in holding that the applicant did not operate independently on the market and declaring Roca Sanitario to be responsible for its conduct, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
In that regard and in the alternative, the decision infringes Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty as well as the principle of individual responsibility for infringements and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the amount of the fine imposed individually on the applicant for the infringement allegedly committed prior to its acquisition by Roca Sanitario. That amounts exceeds 10 % of its turnover in the year preceding adoption of the contested decision and has been incorrectly established.
Case T-408/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Roca Sanitario v Commission
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment, competition law, economic concentration, plumbing equipment, selling price








C_2010301EN.01005502.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/55





Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Roca Sanitario v Commission
(Case T-408/10)
()
2010/C 301/88
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Roca Sanitario SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and M. Merola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annulment in part of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of European Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in so far as they relate to Roca Sanitario;










—


in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on Roca Sanitario, as requested in the application, to the extent that the Court deems appropriate for the reasons set out or for such other reasons as the Court may determine;










—


in the further alternative, if the Court should give judgment in other actions brought by Roca France or Laufen Austria, reducing the fine imposed in the European Commission Decision of 23 June 2010 for infringements by these companies for which Roca Sanitario is jointly and severally liable, a declaration that Roca Sanitario is entitled to an equivalent reduction in the amount of the fine for which it is jointly and severally liable;










—


an order that the Commission should pay the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission and Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
The applicant submits, in particular, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant was jointly and severally liable for the infringements allegedly committed by Roca France and Laufe Austria, substantially exceeding the maximum amount of the fine that may be fixed under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. (1)

It is also submitted that the contested decision disregards, without giving reasons, the considerable amount of evidence adduced, which, for the purposes of the attribution of liability and calculation of the fine, rebuts the presumption that the applicant exercised decisive influence over Roca France and Laufen Austria.
The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the rights of the defence, since it attributed liability to the applicant on the basis of facts and subjective assessments not contained in the statement of objections, and in respect of which the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to give its views.


(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.
Case T-398/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria v Commission.
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01005201.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/52





Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria v Commission.
(Case T-398/10)
()
2010/C 301/83
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 1 and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 30 June 2010, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), with respect to the applicant;










—


Substantially reduce the fine;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the applicant is the same decision contested in the case T-385/10, ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
The applicant submits to the Court:






(i)


Defects of reasoning in the contested decision that affect the rights of defence of Fapricela and have led to a rectification of the decision. The applicant claims that this rectification must be deemed void, as the recognition of material errors by the Commission prejudices the full exercise by Fapricela of its rights of defence and undermines the purpose of the present action, furthermore giving the European Commission the additional option of issuing the new amending decision having regard to the submissions of law and fact of the companies in this action.










(ii)


The European Commission has not established that Fapricela was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the existence of non-Iberian cartels and therefore cannot hold Fapricela responsible for the single continuing infringement identified in the contested decision;
Alternatively,










(iii)


The Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment by fixing the fine applied to this company in the way it did and the fine should be reduced accordingly;










(iv)


The Commission incorrectly calculated the duration of the involvement of Fapricela in the infringement and did not take into account a temporary period of distancing; and










(v)


The Commission committed errors of fact and infringed the principle of equal treatment by refusing to recognise Fapricela’s inability to pay the fine.
Case T-29/05: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Deltafina v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Rights of the defence — Definition of the relevant market — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Role as leader — Cooperation)
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, sanction (EU), tobacco industry, unlawful agreement








C_2010288EN.01002802.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/28






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Deltafina v Commission
(Case T-29/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Rights of the defence - Definition of the relevant market - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Role as leader - Cooperation)
(2010/C 288/53)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Deltafina SpA (Orvieto, Italy) (represented by: R. Jacchia, A. Terranova, I. Picciano, F. Ferraro, J.-F. Bellis and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato and, subsequently, É. Gippini Fournier and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238.B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Deltafina SpA by Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 6 120 000.










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders Deltafina to bear three quarters of its own costs and pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and pay one quarter of those incurred by Deltafina.






(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
Case T-15/10 R II R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission (Interim Relief — Application for Interim Measures — New Application — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Centre for the Development of Enterprise, European Commission, economic activity, legitimacy, summary procedure








C_2010288EN.01004102.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/41






Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission
(Case T-15/10 R II R)
(Interim Relief - Application for Interim Measures - New Application - Inadmissibility)
(2010/C 288/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, Agent)

Re:

Application for, in essence, a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) are unlawful, in so far as it appears therein that the Commission decided to grant legal assistance to one of its former members and to a number of its agents.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed;










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-404/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand)
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment








C_2010328EN.01003201.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/32





Action brought on 8 September 2010 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand)
(Case T-404/10)
()
2010/C 328/55
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: National Lottery Commission (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediatek Italia Srl (Napoli, Italy), Giuseppe De Gregorio (Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in case R 1028/2009-1;










—


Remit the case to the Cancellation Division;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark representing a hand with two crossed fingers and a smiling face for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 4800389

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The parties requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded their request on relative grounds for invalidity pursuant to Articles 53(1)(c) and 53(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 53(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in law in its assessment of this article and in its approach to the assessment of the facts, and failed to exercise its powers of investigation. The applicant also considers that the Board of Appeal failed to exercise the full remit of its powers under Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.