12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/1

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 May 2011

2011/C 141/01

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,4357
JPY	Japanese yen	116,47
DKK	Danish krone	7,4559
GBP	Pound sterling	0,87075
SEK	Swedish krona	8,9460
CHF	Swiss franc	1,2661
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	7,7890
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	24,258
HUF	Hungarian forint	263,67
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,7093
PLN	Polish zloty	3,9013
RON	Romanian leu	4,0918
TRY	Turkish lira	2,2644
AUD	Australian dollar	1,3255
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,3701
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	11,1580
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,8074
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,7666
KRW	South Korean won	1 543,42
ZAR	South African rand	9,7368
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	9,3220
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,3780
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	12 236,29
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,2777
PHP	Philippine peso	61,557
RUB	Russian rouble	39,7180
THB	Thai baht	43,186
BRL	Brazilian real	2,3102
MXN	Mexican peso	16,5996
INR	Indian rupee	64,1690

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/2

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to launch winding-up proceedings in respect of Evropaiki Pronia A.E.G.A.

(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2011/C 141/02

Insurance undertaking

Evropaiki Pronia A.E.G.A., registered office in Athens

L. Dimokratias 8

151 27 Melissia

GREECE

Date, entry into force and type of decision

Decision No 7/9 of 29 March 2011 of the Committee for Credit and Insurance Matters to permanently withdraw the operating licence of the company and to wind it up

Entry into force: 29 March 2011

Competent authority

Bank of Greece, Private Insurance Supervisory Division

Eleftheriou Venizelou 21

102 50 Athens

GREECE

Supervisory authority

Bank of Greece, Private Insurance Supervisory Division

Eleftheriou Venizelou 21

102 50 Athens

GREECE

Appointed liquidator

Prodromos V. Sikiaridis (Winding-up supervisor)

Ravine 2

115 21 Athens

GREECE

Applicable law

Greek law: Articles 3(3), 7 to 9 and 17(a) to 17(c) of Legislative Decree No 400/1970

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/3

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Novit Assicurazioni SpA and Sequoia Partecipazioni SpA

(Publication in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2011/C 141/03

Insurance undertaking

Novit Assicurazioni SpA

Via Pisa 29

10152 Torino TO

ITALIA

Parent company of the insurance group of which the insurance undertaking is part

Sequoia Partecipazioni SpA

Piazza Maria Teresa 3

10152 Torino TO

ITALIA

Date, entry into force and nature of the decision

ISVAP measure No 2877 of 9 February 2011: Appointment of a receiver for provisional management within the meaning of Articles 230(1) and 275(1) of Legislative Decree No 209/2005

Competent authorities

ISVAP

Via del Quirinale 21

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

Supervisory authority

ISVAP

Via del Quirinale 21

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

Receiver appointed

Dr Luciano Becchio

Via Pisa 29

10152 Torino TO

ITALIA

Applicable law

The law of Italy

Articles 230(1) and 275(1) of Legislative Decree No 209/2005

ISVAP measure No 2877 of 9 February 2011 provides for the appointment, within the meaning of Article 230 of Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, of Dr Luciano Becchio as receiver for the provisional management of Novit Assicurazioni SpA, a company having its head office at Via Pisa 29, Turin, Italia, and Sequoia Partecipazioni SpA, a company having its head office at Piazza Maria Teresa 3, Turin, Italia, for a maximum period of two months from the date of adoption of the present measure. Consequently, the powers of the companies’ administrative and supervisory bodies are suspended.

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/9

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Western International Insurance Company (Europe) Limited

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2011/C 141/09

Insurance undertaking

Western International Insurance Company (Europe) Limited

c/o McStay Luby Chartered Accountants

Dargan House

21-23 Fenian Street

Dublin 2

IRELAND

Date, entry into force and nature of the decision

Date of commencement of liquidation is 5 October 2006.

The liquidator was appointed following a resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the member of the Company on 5 October 2006.

Competent authorities

This is a members voluntary liquidation. All admitted creditors have been or will be paid in full.

There is no competent authority as defined by Section 2(1) of S.I. No 168/2003 European Communities (reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings) Regulations 2003

Supervisory authority

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation

23 Kildare Street

Dublin 2

IRELAND

Liquidator appointed

Tom Rogers, Liquidator

McStay Luby Chartered Accountants

Dargan House

21-23 Fenian Street

Dublin 2

IRELAND

Applicable law

Companies Acts 1963-2001

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 18 October 2010

in Case E-3/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate)

2011/C 141/10

In Case E-3/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 18 October 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

2.	orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-2/10

Þór Kolbeinsson v The Icelandic State

(Safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC — Article 3 of the EEA Agreement — Employers’ and employees’ liability for work accidents — State liability)

2011/C 141/11

In Case E-2/10 between Þór Kolbeinsson and the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

Save in exceptional circumstances it is not compatible with Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement to hold a worker liable under national tort law for all, or the greater share, of the losses suffered as a result of an accident at work due to his own contributory negligence when it has been established that the employer had not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place.

Exceptional circumstances may exist where the employee has caused the accident wilfully or by acting with gross negligence, but even in such cases a complete denial of compensation would be disproportionate and not in compliance with the Directives except in extreme cases of the employee being substantially more to blame for the accident than the employer.

An EEA State may be held liable for breach of the rule on contributory negligence inherent in Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement provided that the breach is sufficiently serious. It is for the national court to decide in accordance with the settled case law on State liability for breaches of EEA law whether this condition is fulfilled in the case before it.

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-1/10

Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS

(Directive 2004/25/EC — Acquisition of control — Mandatory bid — Adjustment of the bid price — Clearly determined circumstances and criteria — Reference to market price)

2011/C 141/13

In Case E-1/10 between Periscopus AS and Oslo Børs AS and Erik Must AS — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), Norway, concerning the interpretation of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids precludes national legislation which provides that the price to be offered in a mandatory bid must be adjusted to be at least as high as the ‘market price’ in situations where it is clear that the ‘market price’ is higher than the price calculated according to the main rule prescribed in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(4), without further clarification of the term ‘market price’. In particular, further clarification is needed of the time interval relevant for determining the ‘market price’, whether or not the ‘market price’ must be calculated on the basis of a volume-weighted average, and whether actual trades are necessary or standing buy or sell orders suffice in order to establish a ‘market price’.

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/14

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6195 — Holcim/Basalt/H + B Grondstoffen JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 141/14

On 3 May 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 undertakings Holcim Grondstoffen B.V. (‘Holcim’, the Netherlands), controlled by the Holcim Group (Switzerland), and Basalt Union GmbH (‘Basalt’, Germany) belonging to the Werhahn group, acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking H + B Grondstoffen C.V. (‘the JV’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—	for Holcim: trading of aggregates in the Netherlands. The Holcim Group is active in the manufacturing and distribution of cement, production, processing and distribution of aggregates, ready-mixed concrete, pre-cast concrete products and asphalt,

—	for Basalt: trading of aggregates in the Netherlands. The Werhahn group is active in various sectors including production of aggregates, asphalt and construction materials, slate extraction and sales, baking products, kitchenware and beauty segments, real estate and finance,

—	for the JV: trading of aggregates in the Netherlands.

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.

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.6195 — Holcim/Basalt/H + B Grondstoffen JV, 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’).

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/15

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6162 — Pfizer/Ferrosan Consumer Healthcare Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 141/15

On 2 May 2011 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Pfizer Inc. (‘Pfizer’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the consumer health care business of Ferrosan Holding A/S (‘Ferrosan’, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—	for Pfizer: a publicly listed global research-based biomedical and pharmaceutical company active in discovering, developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling innovative medicines for humans and animals,

—	for Ferrosan: the Consumer Healthcare business of Ferrosan Holding A/S. The Medical Devices business of Ferrosan is not subject of the proposed acquisition.

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.

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.6162 — Pfizer/Ferrosan Consumer Healthcare 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’).

12.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/16

MAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL FILE FOR PISCO

2011/C 141/16

INTRODUCTION

On 27 July 2009, the Republic of Peru has applied for registration of ‘Pisco’ as a geographical indication within Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89.

According to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, the Commission shall verify, within 12 months from the date of submission of the application referred to in paragraph 1, whether that application complies with this Regulation.

This verification has been done and in accordance with Article 17(6), the Commission services have announced that the application complies with the Regulation at the 101st meeting of the Committee for spirit drinks on 17 November 2010.

Therefore, the main specifications of the technical file shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C Series.

According to Article 17 (7), within six months from the date of publication of the main specifications of the technical file, any natural or legal person that has a legitimate interest may object to the registration of the geographical indication in Annex III on the grounds that the conditions provided for in this Regulation are not fulfilled. The objection, which must be duly substantiated, shall be submitted to the Commission in one of the official languages of the European Union or accompanied by a translation into one of those languages.

MAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL FILE FOR ‘PISCO’

1. Name: ‘Pisco’

2. Category of spirit drink: Fruit spirit

3. Description: Spirit produced from the fermentation of the fruit of the vine (Vitis vitifera).

There are three types of ‘Pisco’ distinguished according to the type of ‘pisco’ grape (aromatic or non-aromatic) used in the production, and by the level of fermentation undergone by the must:

— ‘Pisco Puro’: this is obtained from a single variety of ‘pisco’ grape; it may also be referred to as ‘Pisco Puro’ made from aromatic grapes or ‘Pisco Puro’ made from non-aromatic grapes,

— ‘Pisco Acholado’: this is obtained from the mix of various varieties of ‘pisco’ grapes, either prior to fermentation or after distillation,

— ‘Pisco Mosto Verde’: this is obtained from distilling the fresh musts of ‘pisco’ grapes which have undergone interrupted fermentation.

4. Physical and chemical characteristics:

Alcoholic strength by volume at 20/20 °C (%): minimum 38,0, maximum 48,0

Dry matter at 100 °C (g/l): 0,6

Volatile components and congeners (mg/100 ml A.A):

—	Esters, as total esters: minimum 10, maximum 330

—	Ethyl formate: 0

—	Ethyl acetic: minimum 10, maximum 280

—	Isoamyl acetate: 0

Furfural: maximum 5

Aldehydes, such as acetic aldehyde: minimum 3, maximum 60

Higher alcohols, as total higher alcohols: minimum 60, maximum 350

Volatile acidity, as ascetic acid: maximum 200

Methyl alcohol:

—	‘Pisco Puro’ and ‘Mosto Verde’ made from non-aromatic grapes: minimum 4, maximum 100

—	‘Pisco Puro’ and ‘Pisco Mosto Verde’ made from aromatic grapes and ‘Pisco Acholado’: minimum 4, maximum 150

5. Geographical area: All the stages of processing ‘Pisco’, from growing the vine, processing the grape and bottling the final product, are carried out in the ‘“Pisco”-making area’, which is located in the following departments and provinces of the Republic of Peru:

6. Method of production:

The grape harvest. Takes place between the months of March and April and is carried out entirely by hand.

Crushing and destalking. The grapes destined to be used in the production of the final product are crushed and destalked. This consists of breaking the grape to extract the juice avoiding breaking the seeds, and removing remaining stalks on the bunches and cuttings. Destalking is a vital step in obtaining the fermented must for producing the drink protected under the PGI.

Tanking and maceration. This involves putting the must in fermentation tanks. In order to obtain an aromatic depth in the base wine, once in the tanks, the grape skin is macerated with the grape must, and the maceration time depends on the characteristics of the variety.

Pressing. Once maceration is complete, the grape marc is pressed.

Fermentation. This is carried out in containers which may be fermentation vats, these days made of cement in the larger production centres, or traditional large earthen jars or earthenware jugs in smaller production centres.

It may be carried out without maceration or with the partial or complete maceration of the grape marc, depending on the type of ‘Pisco’ to be produced from each batch. After the maceration process follows what is traditionally known as ‘devatting’, which consists of separating the solid part of the must, that is the grape marc (skin and seed) from the liquid (juice of the fermented grape), allowing fermentation to be completed.

Distillation. ‘Pisco’ is characterised as being obtained from direct and intermittent distillation, with the ‘heads and tails’ being separated off in order to select solely the central column of the product known as the ‘body’ or ‘heart’. The must is heated in small stills, stills or heated stills, made of copper or tin.

Maturation or ‘keeping’. The spirit must be kept in suitable containers for a minimum of three months before it is bottled. Before bottling the product, the filtration process is carried out in order to eliminate suspended particles, for this purpose polishing filters are used.

7. Link: The south coast of Peru, where the ‘Pisco’-making area is located, is dry on account of marine currents, and the only natural humidity arises from the rare showers and mists which occur during winter. The low humidity and slight absence of precipitation during the year provide the best conditions for the grape, which once it is harvested will be of high quality and suitable for the production of the drink.

The multi-year average maximum temperature in the geographical area of the ‘Pisco’-making area varies between 30,8 °C and 24,4 °C. The average minimum temperature varies between 16,7 °C and 11,6 °C, whilst the annual average temperature reaches values of between 22,4 °C and 18,5 °C. This slightly strange thermal gradient allows the vine to reach a maximum physiological and technological maturity, which allows the correct fermentation of the musts. The grapes reach the appropriate concentration of sugars which allows for a greater production of alcohol by the yeasts and therefore an extraordinarily rich alcoholic content during the distillation of the product.

The ‘Pisco’-making area is characterised as having mixed soils (presence of clay, sandy and limy soil in equivalent proportions) and very sandy soils, with the water used for irrigation coming from river flooding, as these areas are to be found close to the foot of the Andes mountain range. In this way the vineyards are irrigated with fresh water which helps to give better production and a high quality of grapes.

To these elements must be added the growing practices used by the producer in their vineyards and the traditional method used to produce the product which owes its uniqueness to the combination of art, custom and valuable experience.

8. Requirements of the national legislation: ‘Pisco’ is protected in Peru as a denomination of origin by Resolución Directoral no 072087-DIPI issued by INDECOPI on 12 December 1990.

The administrative procedure which a producer must follow before INDECOPI in order to obtain an authorisation for use includes the requirement to prove that their product complies with the Peruvian Technical Standard 211.001:2006.

9. Applicant: Instituto nacional de defensa de la competencia y de la protección de la propiedad intelectual «INDECOPI», calle De la Prosa, 138 — San Borja, Lima, Perú.

10. Supervisory authority: Comisión nacional del Pisco «CONAPISCO», Calle Uno Oeste 060. Urb. Corpac — San Isidro, Lima, Perú.

11. Labelling: The label must respect the technical specifications in force under standards NTP 210.027/2004, NTP 209.038/2003 and NMP 001/1995 before it may be sold at home or abroad.

The label must indicate the variety of the ‘Pisco’ grape and the address of the producing winery. The location of production may also be indicated under the heading ‘Zona de Producción’, but only when the ‘Pisco’ is made and bottled in the ‘Pisco’-making area of origin of the ‘Pisco’ grapes used in its production.

		ISSN 1725-2423 doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.141.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 141

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 54 12 May 2011

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2011/C 141/01	Euro exchange rates	1

	NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES
2011/C 141/02	Winding-up proceedings — Decision to launch winding-up proceedings in respect of Evropaiki Pronia A.E.G.A. (Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)	2

2011/C 141/03	Winding-up proceedings — Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Novit Assicurazioni SpA and Sequoia Partecipazioni SpA (Publication in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)	3

2011/C 141/04	Publication pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit insitutions	4

2011/C 141/05	Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services ( 1 )	5

2011/C 141/06	Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations as detailed in the information notice published in OJ C 141, 12.5.2011 ( 1 )	6

2011/C 141/07	Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations as detailed in the information notice published in OJ C 141, 12.5.2011 ( 1 )	7

2011/C 141/08	Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations as detailed in the information notice published in OJ C 141, 12.5.2011 ( 1 )	8

2011/C 141/09	Winding-up proceedings — Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Western International Insurance Company (Europe) Limited (Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)	9

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	EFTA Court
2011/C 141/10	Judgment of the Court of 18 October 2010 in Case E-3/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate)	10

2011/C 141/11	Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-2/10 — Þór Kolbeinsson v The Icelandic State (Safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC — Article 3 of the EEA Agreement — Employers’ and employees’ liability for work accidents — State liability)	11

2011/C 141/12	Order of the Court of 31 January 2011 in Case E-13/10 — Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)	12

2011/C 141/13	Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-1/10 — Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS (Directive 2004/25/EC — Acquisition of control — Mandatory bid — Adjustment of the bid price — Clearly determined circumstances and criteria — Reference to market price)	13

	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY
	European Commission
2011/C 141/14	Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6195 — Holcim/Basalt/H + B Grondstoffen JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	14

2011/C 141/15	Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6162 — Pfizer/Ferrosan Consumer Healthcare Business) ( 1 )	15

	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2011/C 141/16	Main specifications of the technical file for Pisco	16