do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6049 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Trakya/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011039EN.01000702.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6049 — Compagnie de Saint-Gobain/Trakya/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/06
On 2 February 2011, 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 32011M6049. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011039EN.01000901.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 February 2011
2011/C 39/08

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3553




JPY


Japanese yen


111,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4546




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84020




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8050




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2953




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8385




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,070




HUF


Hungarian forint


269,17




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7015




PLN


Polish zloty


3,8740




RON


Romanian leu


4,2590




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1387




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3355




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3380




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5511




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7582




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7284




KRW


South Korean won


1 497,50




ZAR


South African rand


9,8535




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9247




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4143




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 114,61




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1089




PHP


Philippine peso


58,855




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8100




THB


Thai baht


41,662




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2702




MXN


Mexican peso


16,2228




INR


Indian rupee


61,6250






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-56/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2011 — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G. v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, farmer, plantation, seed








C_2011145EN.01000701.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2011 — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G. v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-56/11)
2011/C 145/08
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G.

Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information laid down in the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 (1) and Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1768/95 (2) become established only if the request for information from the holder of the variety right is received by the supplier of processing services before the expiry of the marketing year (or the most recent marketing year where there are several) concerned by the request?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is there a request for information ‘complying with the time-limit’ where the holder claims in his request that he has some indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process for planting harvested material of the protected variety which the farmer named in the request has obtained by planting from propagating material of the protected variety, or must the supplier of the processing services also be furnished with evidence of the claimed indication in the request for information (for example, by providing a copy of the farmer’s statements of planting the product of the harvest)?










3.


Can indications establishing the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information be derived from the fact that the supplier of processing services, as the agent of the holder of the plant variety right, performs a propagation contract for the production of consumption-related seed of the protected variety, which the holder of the plant variety right has concluded with the farmer effecting propagation, where and because the farmer is in fact granted the possibility, in performing the propagation contract, of using some of the propagation seed for planting?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14)
Case F-95/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2011 — Skareby v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Reasonable period — Point from which time starts to run — Length of time)
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, psychological harassment








C_2011095EN.01001303.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/13





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2011 — Skareby v Commission
(Case F-95/09) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment by a hierarchical superior - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Reasonable period - Point from which time starts to run - Length of time)
2011/C 95/21
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to open an enquiry into the psychological harassment of which the applicant alleges to have been a victim

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 March 2009 refusing to open an administrative enquiry into allegations of psychological harassment by one of Ms Skareby’s former hierarchical superiors;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 81.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6077 — TPG/Ashland Distribution)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment, merger control








C_2011039EN.01000801.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/8





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6077 — TPG/Ashland Distribution)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/07
On 1 February 2011, 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 32011M6077. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case F-60/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2011 — Chiavegato v Commission
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment, appointment of staff








C_2011089EN.01002801.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/28





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2011 — Chiavegato v Commission
(Case F-60/10) (1)

2011/C 89/54
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.10, p. 28.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5980 — Tranquilidade/Banco Pastor/Pastor Vida/Espirito Santo Gestion/Gespastor)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, bank, economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance, merger control








C_2011039EN.01000602.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5980 — Tranquilidade/Banco Pastor/Pastor Vida/Espirito Santo Gestion/Gespastor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/04
On 20 December 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 32010M5980. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-194/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS Del MEDITERRÁNEO LAM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM — Earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), airline, trade-mark law








C_2011089EN.01001601.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/16





Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS Del MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)
(Case T-194/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM - Earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 89/36
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Lan Airlines, SA (Renca, Chile) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA (Manises, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 107/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lan Airlines, SA and Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lan Airlines, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 February 2011 in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland) (Case E-3/11)
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, credit transfer, residence








C_2011208EN.01000601.xml










14.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/6





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 February 2011 in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland)
(Case E-3/11)
2011/C 208/05
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 8 February 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland), on the following question:
Is it compatible with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 43 of the EEA Agreement that the Icelandic State should prevent an Icelandic national, resident in Britain, from transferring Icelandic krónur, which he has purchased on the offshore market in Britain, to Iceland?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6134 — Bouygues/Heijmans UK Limited) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, telecommunications








C_2011039EN.01002501.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6134 — Bouygues/Heijmans UK Limited)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/13






1.


On 31 January 2011 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 Bouygues SA (‘Bouygues’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertaking Heijmans UK Limited (‘Heijmans’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bouygues: construction, telecommunications and media










—


for Heijmans: property development, residential and non-residential construction, technical services, and activities in the infrastructure sector.














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.6134 — Bouygues/Heijmans UK Limited, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6041 — PAI/Gecos/Nuance)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, information technology industry, merger control








C_2011039EN.01000601.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6041 — PAI/Gecos/Nuance)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/03
On 31 January 2011, 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 32011M6041. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6015 — Banco Santander/Bank Zachodni WBK/BZWBK AIB Asset Management)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011039EN.01000701.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6015 — Banco Santander/Bank Zachodni WBK/BZWBK AIB Asset Management)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/05
On 20 December 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 32010M6015. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-157/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Paroc v OHIM (INSULATE FOR LIFE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INSULATE FOR LIFE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Merely confirmatory decision — Partial inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), building services, trade-mark law








C_2011089EN.01001501.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/15





Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Paroc v OHIM (INSULATE FOR LIFE)
(Case T-157/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INSULATE FOR LIFE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Merely confirmatory decision - Partial inadmissibility)
2011/C 89/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Paroc Oy AB (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Palm)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2008 (Case R 54/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign INSULATE FOR LIFE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Paroc Oy AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, means of communication








C_2011039EN.01000501.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/5





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 39/02






Date of adoption of the decision


30.11.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 567/09




Member State


Spain




Region


País Vasco




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Ayudas a la creación, desarrollo y producción audiovisual.




Legal basis


Orden de 4 de mayo de 2009, de la Consejera de Cultura, por la que se convoca la concesión de ayudasa la creación, desarrollo y producción audiovisual




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Culture




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget








 


Annual budget: EUR 2,53 million










 


Overall budget: EUR 2,53 million








Intensity


50 %




Duration (period)


1.1.2009-31.3.2010




Economic sectors


Media




Name and address of the granting authority







Dirección de Promoción de la Cultura




Departamento de Cultura




Gobierno Vasco




C/ Donostia-San Sebastián, 1




01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz




ESPAÑA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm