do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-85/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2001/2002 Appraisal — Career Development Report — Compliance with an annulling judgment — Effects of the withdrawal of an act — Establishment of the objectives)
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, civil servant, personnel administration, professional career








C_2010317EN.01004802.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/48





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission
(Case F-85/09) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - 2001/2002 Appraisal - Career Development Report - Compliance with an annulling judgment - Effects of the withdrawal of an act - Establishment of the objectives)
2010/C 317/85
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the applicant’s Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses Mr Rossi Ferreras’s action;










2.


Orders Mr Rossi Ferreras to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19/12/2009, p. 45.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010247EN.01000101.xml










14.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 September 2010
2010/C 247/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2801




JPY


Japanese yen


107,69




DKK


Danish krone


7,4466




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83120




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1840




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2991




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8520




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,672




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


283,76




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7088




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9383




RON


Romanian leu


4,2608




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9164




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3732




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3185




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9432




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7490




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7138




KRW


South Korean won


1 486,28




ZAR


South African rand


9,1491




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,6558




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2850




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 435,39




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9709




PHP


Philippine peso


56,512




RUB


Russian rouble


39,3325




THB


Thai baht


39,357




BRL


Brazilian real


2,1971




MXN


Mexican peso


16,4646




INR


Indian rupee


59,3950






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-419/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Ori Martin v Commission
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, action for annulment, competition law, materials technology, steel, wire








C_2010301EN.01006001.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/60





Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Ori Martin v Commission
(Case T-419/10)
()
2010/C 301/96
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Ori Martin SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Ziotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel), in so far as it attributes to the applicant liability for the conduct penalised;










—


annulment or reduction of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision;










—


an order that the Commission should pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in this case is the same as that in Case T-385/10 Arcelor/Mittal Wire France v Commission.
The applicant maintains that the European Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 is unlawful in that it makes the applicant liable solely because it (almost) wholly owns the company which is alleged to have committed the collusive acts penalised under Article 101 TFEU.
In particular, the applicant pleads:






—


infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/23, in that the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred in the circumstances of the case;










—


infringement of Article 101 TFEU and breach of the principles of the personal nature of liability and penalties, of sound administration and non-discrimination, in that the Commission goes so far as to attribute to the applicant real and personal strict liability for the possibly unlawful acts committed by the company it controls, liability subject to an irrebuttable presumption which cannot in point of fact be challenged by evidence to the contrary. That liability on the basis of ownership is unexampled and contrary to the principles laid down by Community case-law in relation to the application of Article 101 TFEU when groups of companies are concerned;










—


breach of the principle that capital companies enjoy limited liability by virtue of the company law common to the laws of the Member States and to the law of the European Union itself.




Ori Martin then seeks annulment or, at least, a considerable reduction of the fine imposed.
Case C-48/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mega Brands Inc. (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark — Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark — Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick — Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result)
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01000301.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mega Brands Inc.
(Case C-48/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark - Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick - Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result)
2010/C 301/03
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lego Juris A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Mega Brands Inc. (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, advocaten).

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in which that Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a Lego brick for goods in Classes 9 and 28 against Decision R 856/2004-G of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 July 2006 which had dismissed the appeal brought against the Cancellation Division’s decision declaring that mark partially invalid in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Mega Brands — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Case F-79/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — AE v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Occupational sickness and accident insurance — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease — Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, civil servant, damage, personnel administration








C_2010317EN.01004801.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/48





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — AE v Commission
(Case F-79/09)
(Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Occupational sickness and accident insurance - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease - Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)
2010/C 317/84
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AE (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, and, subsequently, J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment, first, of the decision of the appointing authority dated 15 December 2008, received on 16 January 2009, rejecting the applicant’s request that his medical condition be recognised as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and, second, so far as necessary action for annulment of the decision of 11 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Claim for EUR 12 000 damages in compensation for non-material damage suffered

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Orders the European Commission to pay AE the sum of EUR 2 000;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay a quarter of the applicant’s;










4.


Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of his or her own costs.
Case T-399/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal España v Commission
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, fine, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01005301.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/53





Action brought on 14 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal España v Commission
(Case T-399/10)
()
2010/C 301/84
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ArcelorMittal España, SA (Gozón, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision insofar as they relate to ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;










—


in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;










—


and, as a further alternative, decrease the amount of the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Article 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, it seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on 6 pleas in law.
First, the applicant claims that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights insofar as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.
Second, it submits that the Commission has committed the errors in the calculation of the fine, which led to a larger fine being imposed on the applicant.
Third, it contends that the Commission has erroneously found that the applicant exercised decisive influence on Emesa and Galycas’ prior to December 1997.
Fourth, it argues that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicant a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), although it provided decisive evidence on the duration and gravity of the infringement and thus, fulfilled the requirements stated therein.
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has incorrectly applied the ‘specific increase for deterrence’ provided for in paragraph point 30 of the Commission 2006 Fining Guidelines (2), resulting in an illegal 20 % increase of the fine imposed on the applicant.


(1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3


(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2
Case F-52/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice (Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary official — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Rights of the defence — Evaluation of abilities — Judicial review)
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: action by staff, civil servant, dismissal, opinion of the Court of Justice (EU), personnel administration








C_2010317EN.01004702.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/47





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice
(Case F-52/09) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary official - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Rights of the defence - Evaluation of abilities - Judicial review)
2010/C 317/83
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Delfina Da Silva Pinto Branco (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Erniquin and C. Defago, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A.V. Placco, Agent)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant. Next, application for the applicant to be established as an official or to be reinstated in her post as a probationary official. Lastly, application for damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mrs Da Silva Pinto Branco to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 244, 10/10/2009, p. 16.
Case T-395/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, administrative procedure, infringement of EU law








C_2010301EN.01005002.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/50





Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
(Case T-395/10)
()
2010/C 301/80
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the implied refusal of the applicant’s confirmatory application;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to certain documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India.
In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
First, it claims that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to reply to the confirmatory application within the prescribed time.
Second, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 and the Treaty by constructively rejecting a confirmatory application without giving any reasons or without giving reasons to the standards required by the Treaty and by the Court.
Third, it submits that by failing to reply to the confirmatory application the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement and/or committed an error of law.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-15/10)
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, European standard, Norway, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure








C_2010320EN.01002301.xml










25.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/23





Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-15/10)
2010/C 320/12
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Frode Elgesem, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VIIs gate 10, 0116 Oslo, NORWAY.
The Applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:






—


annul the contested decision,










—


annul or substantially reduce the fine,










—


order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The Applicant, Posten Norge AS, operates the national postal service in Norway which covers mail, parcels and financial services. Its sole owner continues to be the Norwegian State. The majority of Posten Norge AS’ services (90 %) are exposed to competition.










—


By its decision of 14 July 2010 in case No 34250 ‘Norway Post/Privpak’, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that Posten Norge AS committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. Consequently, a fine of EUR 12,89 million was imposed.










—


The Applicant claims that the decision must be annulled as:






—


the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse,










—


the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects,










—


in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified.














—


In the alternative the Applicant contends that the fine must be substantially reduced as the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






—


erred in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement,










—


failed to correctly assess the gravity of the infringement,










—


failed to conclude the administrative proceedings within reasonable time, which alone must lead to a reduction of the fine by at least 50 %.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5973 — CVC/Charden International)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage, distributive trades, economic concentration, exchange of information, financing, investment company, marketing, merger control








C_2010247EN.01000501.xml










14.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5973 — CVC/Charden International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 247/04






1.


On 7 September 2010, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’, Luxembourg), through CVC Fund V and CVC Tandem Fund, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Charden International BV (‘Charden’, Netherlands) by way of the purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CVC: The principal part of its business is advising and managing investment funds which participate in and finance other companies, primarily in Europe, North America and Asia, and,










—


Charden: is the ultimate parent company of the Autobar Group, which is active primarily in Europe in the supply, instalment and operation of vending equipment and beverage systems and the provision of vending ingredients.














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.5973 — CVC/Charden International, 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’).