do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.6203 — Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, exchange of information, merger control, new technology








C_2011165EN.01000301.xml










7.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/3





Initiation of proceedings
(Case COMP/M.6203 — Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 165/04
On 30 May 2011, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6203 — Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 553/2011 of 7 June 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, agricultural product, import price








L_2011149EN.01000801.xml










8.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 149/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 553/2011
of 7 June 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 June 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


TR 


110,0 




ZZ 


110,0 




0707 00 05 


TR 


125,5 




ZZ 


125,5 




0709 90 70 


TR 


118,7 




ZZ 


118,7 




0709 90 80 


EC 


18,6 




ZZ 


18,6 




0805 50 10 


AR 


78,9 




BR 


36,6 




TR 


63,4 




ZA 


79,4 




ZZ 


64,6 




0808 10 80 


AR 


88,9 




BR 


75,9 




CA 


142,4 




CL 


88,5 




CN 


91,2 




NZ 


116,0 




US 


92,5 




UY 


50,2 




ZA 


95,4 




ZZ 


93,4 




0809 10 00 


TR 


214,0 




ZZ 


214,0 




0809 20 95 


TR 


392,6 




XS 


175,4 




ZZ 


284,0 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case T-206/06: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Rights of the defence — Presumption of innocence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — Principle of sound administration — Principle of legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Fines — Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies)
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011211EN.01002201.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/22





Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case T-206/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies)
2011/C 211/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Total and Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, amendment of Article 2(b) of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 596/2011 of 7 June 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fichi di Cosenza (PDO)]
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, labelling, pip fruit, product designation








L_2011162EN.01000101.xml










22.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 162/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 596/2011
of 7 June 2011
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Fichi di Cosenza (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, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Fichi di Cosenza’ 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 twentieth day following that of 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, 7 June 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOŞ
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  
            OJ C 265, 30.9.2010, p. 18.




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

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Fichi di Cosenza (PDO)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6132 — Cargill/KVB)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, cocoa, economic concentration, exchange of information, foodstuff, merger control








C_2011165EN.01000101.xml










7.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6132 — Cargill/KVB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 165/01
On 29 April 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 32011M6132. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung Electronics)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics, exchange of information, information technology industry, merger control








C_2011165EN.01000302.xml










7.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/3





Initiation of proceedings
(Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung Electronics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 165/05
On 30 May 2011, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung Electronics, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Case T-289/11: Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn a.o. v Commission
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, group of companies, preferential price, tax inspection








C_2011238EN.01002201.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/22





Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Deutsche Bahn a.o. v Commission
(Case T-289/11)
2011/C 238/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany), DB Mobility Logistics AG (DB ML AG) (Berlin, Germany), DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am- Main, Germany), DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J.S. Brückner and O. Mross, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s inspection decision of 14 March 2011 notified on 29 March 2011;










—


annul all measures taken on the basis of the inspections, which took place on the basis of that unlawful decision;










—


in particular order the Commission to return all the copies of documents made during the inspections, on pain of the annulment of the future Commission decision by the General Court; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 1774 of 14 March 2011 (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731), ordering, in accordance with Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inspections of Deutsche Bahn AG and all legal persons directly or indirectly controlled by the latter by reason of a possible preference of subsidiary undertakings by means of a rebate system in the supply of electromotive power.
In support of their action, the applicants make five pleas in law.






1.


First plea: infringement of the fundamental right to inviolability of one’s premises by reason of lack of prior judicial authorisation.










2.


Second plea: infringement of the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy by reason of the lack of possibility of prior judicial review of the inspection decision, both from the factual and the legal point of view.










3.


Third plea: infringement of defence rights by reason of a disproportionately wide and non-specific subject-matter of the inspection (‘fishing expedition’).










4.


Fourth plea: infringement of the principle of proportionality. The inspection decision is disproportionate, since the rebate system for electromotive power has been practised by the applicants for years and has been monitored by the authorities and the German courts many times and found compatible with competition law, and since the answer to the question whether the rebate system is ‘objectively justified’, which the Commission regards as the decisive question, could have been answered by a less invasive measure, namely a request for information.






(1)  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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Case T-507/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark 16PF — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — No signs which have become customary — No bad faith — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011211EN.01002302.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/23





Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)
(Case T-507/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark 16PF - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - No signs which have become customary - No bad faith - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 211/50
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the General Court: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States) (represented by: G. Hobbs QC and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 1012/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Psytech International Ltd and the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Psytech International Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
Case T-284/11: Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, trade-mark law








C_2011232EN.01003501.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/35






Action brought on 7 June 2011 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)
(Case T-284/11)
(2011/C 232/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2011 in case R 954/2010-1, and grant the Community trade mark application for the word mark ‘METROINVEST’;










—


Subordinately, and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2011 in case R 954/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METROINVEST’, for services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7112113

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30348717, of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, in blue and yellow, for a range of goods and services in classes 1 to 45; Community trade mark application No 779116, of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, in yellow, for a range of goods and services in classes 1 to 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, related to the right to fair trial and the prohibition of any discrimination and to Community law general principle of equal treatment. Infringement by the Board of Appeal of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, because of the lack of confusion risk between both conflicting trademarks.
Case T-399/10: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arcelor Mittal Espãna v Commission
Date: 2011-06-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, fine, infringement of EU law, trade agreement








C_2011219EN.01002102.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/21





Order of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arcelor Mittal Espãna v Commission
(Case T-399/10) (1)

2011/C 219/34
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010