do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6374 — BRASKEM/DOW polypropylene business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics








C_2011263EN.01002701.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/27





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6374 — BRASKEM/DOW polypropylene business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 263/06






1.


On 26 August 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 BRASKEM America, Inc (‘BRASKEM’, United States), controlled by BRASKEM SA (Brazil), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the polyproplylene business of DOW Chemical Company (‘DOW's polyproplylene business’, United States) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for BRASKEM: production and sale of polyproplylene predominantly in the United States,










—


for DOW's polyproplylene business: supply of polyproplylene resins.














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.6374 — BRASKEM/DOW polypropylene business, 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.6310 — Fujifilm Holdings Corporation/Mitsubishi Corporation/Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies UK & USA)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, film production, merger control, motor vehicle industry, new technology, pharmaceutical industry, recording equipment








C_2011263EN.01000201.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6310 — Fujifilm Holdings Corporation/Mitsubishi Corporation/Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies UK & USA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 263/03
On 30 August 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 32011M6310. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011263EN.01000301.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 September 2011
2011/C 263/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4099




JPY


Japanese yen


109,09




DKK


Danish krone


7,4492




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87710




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0888




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2036




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5965




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,450




HUF


Hungarian forint


277,23




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2325




RON


Romanian leu


4,2540




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4955




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3356




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3992




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,9885




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6972




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7037




KRW


South Korean won


1 514,88




ZAR


South African rand


10,0582




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,0100




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4870




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 067,58




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2057




PHP


Philippine peso


59,664




RUB


Russian rouble


41,7058




THB


Thai baht


42,177




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3209




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6759




INR


Indian rupee


64,8340






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6210 — VFE Commerce/CDC/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, public service, rail transport








C_2011263EN.01000102.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6210 — VFE Commerce/CDC/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 263/02
On 31 August 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 French 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 32011M6210. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6335 — Abertis Infraestructuras/Goldman Sachs Group/Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, transport infrastructure








C_2011263EN.01000101.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6335 — Abertis Infraestructuras/Goldman Sachs Group/Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 263/01
On 31 August 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 32011M6335. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2011 of 7 September 2011 fixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 8 September 2011
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, import (EU), rice








L_2011231EN.01002101.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 231/21








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 903/2011
of 7 September 2011
         
fixing the import duties applicable to certain husked rice from 8 September 2011
         


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), and in particular Article 137 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Based on the information provided by the competent authorities, the Commission notes that import licences for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 , other than import licences for basmati rice, were issued in respect of 438 104 tonnes for the period from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011. The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20  other than basmati rice should therefore be adjusted.












(2)


The applicable duty must be fixed within 10 days of the end of the period mentioned above. This Regulation should therefore come into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The import duty for husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20  shall be EUR 42,5 per tonne.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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 September 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.
Case T-524/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2011 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS — Absolute ground for refusal — Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011305EN.01000601.xml










15.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/6





Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2011 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)
(Case T-524/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS - Absolute ground for refusal - Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 305/06
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Meredith Corp. (Des Moines, United States of America) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Hardcastle, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 517/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Meredith Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/513/EU of 19 August 2011 authorising the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( OJ L 215, 20.8.2011 )
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Israel, food industry, food supplement, market approval, soya bean








L_2011230EN.01007801.xml










7.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 230/78







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/513/EU of 19 August 2011 authorising the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 215 of 20 August 2011
)

On page 20, after ‘(notified under document C(2011) 5897)’, the following text is inserted:


                  ‘
                  (Only the English text is authentic)
                  ’.
Case C-464/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conciliation procedure (part of ordinary legislative procedure), legal adviser, professional qualifications, restorative justice








C_2011340EN.01001003.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others
(Case C-464/11)
2011/C 340/18
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paola Galioto

Defendants: Maria Guccione, Maria Piera Savona, Fabio Savona

Questions referred







1.


Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute?










2.


Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes?










3.


Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’






(1)  OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3.