do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6218 — Ineos/Tessenderlo Group S-PVC Assets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2011279EN.01002802.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/28





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6218 — Ineos/Tessenderlo Group S-PVC Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 279/05
On 26 July 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 32011M6218. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case F-92/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, indemnification








C_2011347EN.01004601.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/46





Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC
(Case F-92/11)
2011/C 347/86
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the EESC refusing the applicant’s request for acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and for measures to be taken in order to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 14 June 2011 of the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee (Appointing authority/EESC) rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and requesting that measures be taken to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, in particular the applicant’s capacity to run an administrative unit and manage its human and financial resources;










—


order the EESC to pay a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from a breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs.
Case C-493/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, new technology, parent company, subsidiary








C_2011347EN.01001701.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/17





Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission
(Case C-493/11 P)
2011/C 347/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the Judgment,










—


based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the Appellant disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability to UTC for the conduct of GTO and the Otis subsidiaries. The plea is dived into three limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by failing to comply with the legal test provided for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability arising from 100 % ownership of subsidiaries by a parent company. Second, the General Court's interpretation of the legal test for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in addressing the specific rebuttals of the presumption of imputability raised by UTC.
By its second plea, the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed an error of law by omitting to address UTC's claim of breach of equal treatment with MEC.
Case C-488/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, criminal law, entrepreneur, national implementing measure, property leasing, provision of services, unfair terms of contract








C_2012013EN.01000301.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV
(Case C-488/11)
2012/C 13/06
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina De Man Garabito

Defendant: Jahani BV

Questions referred







1.


Should a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and who lets a residential property to an individual be deemed to be a seller or supplier within the meaning of the Directive? (1) Does a tenancy agreement between a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and a person who rents such premises on a non-commercial basis fall within the scope of the Directive?










2.


Does the fact that Article 6 of the Directive must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy, mean that, in a dispute between individuals, the national transposition measures with regard to unfair contractual terms are a matter of public policy, so that the national court is competent and obliged, both in first-instance proceedings and in appeal proceedings, of its own motion (and thus also outside the ambit of the grounds of complaint), to assess a contractual term against the national transposition measures and to find that term to be void if it comes to the conclusion that the term is unfair?










3.


Is it compatible with the practical effect of Community law that the national court does not refrain from applying a penalty clause which must be deemed to be an unfair contractual term within the meaning of the Directive, but, by the application of national legislation, merely mitigates the penalty, in a case where an individual has invoked the mitigation powers of the court, but not the voidability of the term concerned?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-194/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Action for annulment — Inaction of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2011340EN.01002401.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/24





Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council
(Case T-194/11) (1)

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Action for annulment - Inaction of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 340/50
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs.










3.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.






(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6349 — Motherson/Cross Industries/Peguform/Wethje)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2011279EN.01002801.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/28





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6349 — Motherson/Cross Industries/Peguform/Wethje)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 279/04
On 16 September 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 32011M6349. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case F-93/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: admission to examinations, competition (EU)








C_2011347EN.01004602.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/46





Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-93/11)
2011/C 347/87
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted on 15 June 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries, grade AST 1;










—


as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests;










—


in any event, request EPSO to disclose the information in its possession regarding the results obtained by all the candidates in test (d);










—


in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, pay the applicant an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;










—


in any event, pay the applicant, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000.
Case T-251/08: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food processing, foodstuff, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01001301.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/13





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)
(Case T-251/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 319/23
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vion NV (Best, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Klinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: M. Kicia and subsequently by: R. Manea, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vion NV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011279EN.01002901.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/29





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 September 2011
2011/C 279/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3448




JPY


Japanese yen


102,59




DKK


Danish krone


7,4458




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87325




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2762




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2275




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8270




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,878




HUF


Hungarian forint


293,06




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4863




RON


Romanian leu


4,3055




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4636




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3691




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3894




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4904




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7185




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7547




KRW


South Korean won


1 605,66




ZAR


South African rand


11,0754




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,6040




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4845




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 246,50




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2744




PHP


Philippine peso


58,919




RUB


Russian rouble


43,2059




THB


Thai baht


41,379




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4887




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6738




INR


Indian rupee


66,6720






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-501/08: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark see more — Earlier national word marks CMORE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01001402.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/14





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)
(Case T-501/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark ‘see more’ - Earlier national word marks CMORE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 319/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1388/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between C More Entertainment AB and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6348 — Arla Foods/Allgäuland)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cooperative, economic concentration, merger control, milk product








C_2011279EN.01003601.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/36





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6348 — Arla Foods/Allgäuland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 279/09






1.


On 15 September 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 Hansa-Milch AG (‘Hansa’, Germany) belonging to Arla Foods Amba (‘Arla’, Denmark) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Allgäuland-Käsereien GmbH and AL Dienstleistungs-GmbH (together referred to as ‘Allgäuland’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Arla is a dairy cooperative owned by dairy farmers. The company is active in the production and sale of a variety of dairy products. In Germany Arla is mainly active through its subsidiary Hansa,










—


Allgäuland is a dairy cooperative and produces a variety of quality cheeses as well as other dairy products, mainly in Germany.














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.6348 — Arla Foods/Allgäuland, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6392 — Gores/Mexx) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, textile industry








C_2011279EN.01003701.xml










23.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/37





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6392 — Gores/Mexx)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 279/10






1.


On 15 September 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 Gores Group LLC (‘Gores’, United States) acquire sole control over Mexx European Holding BV (‘Mexx’, Netherlands) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Gores: private equity investor in technology, telecommunications, business services, industrial and apparel sectors primarily in the United States and Western Europe,










—


for Mexx: retail of clothing, retail sale of footwear and accessories and wholesale of clothing and footwear in Europe and North America.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6392 — Gores/Mexx, 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’).