ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 35/4

Article 107(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Reference period: January 2011

Application period: April, May and June 2011

01-2011 EUR BGN CZK DKK LVL LTL HUF PLN RON 1 EUR = 1 1,95580 24,4488 7,45184 0,703352 3,45280 275,326 3,88963 4,26244 1 BGN = 0,511300 1 12,5007 3,81012 0,359624 1,76542 140,774 1,98877 2,17939 1 CZK = 0,0409018 0,0799957 1 0,304793 0,0287684 0,141226 11,2613 0,159093 0,174342 1 DKK = 0,134195 0,262459 3,28091 1 0,094386 0,463349 36,9474 0,521970 0,571999 1 LVL = 1,42176 2,78068 34,7604 10,5947 1 4,90906 391,448 5,53013 6,06018 1 LTL = 0,289620 0,566439 7,08086 2,15820 0,203705 1 79,7400 1,12652 1,23449 1 HUF = 0,00363206 0,00710357 0,0887994 0,0270655 0,00255461 0,0125408 1 0,0141274 0,0154814 1 PLN = 0,257094 0,502824 6,28563 1,91582 0,180827 0,887693 70,7846 1 1,09585 1 RON = 0,234607 0,458845 5,73587 1,74826 0,165012 0,810052 64,5935 0,912536 1 1 SEK = 0,112206 0,219453 2,74330 0,836141 0,0789204 0,387425 30,8933 0,436440 0,478272 1 GBP = 1,18047 2,30877 28,8612 8,79670 0,830289 4,07594 325,015 4,59161 5,03170 1 NOK = 0,127878 0,250105 3,12647 0,952929 0,0899436 0,441539 35,2083 0,497400 0,545074 1 ISK = 0,00640746 0,0125317 0,156655 0,0477474 0,0045067 0,0221237 1,76414 0,0249227 0,0273114 1 CHF = 0,782508 1,53043 19,1314 5,83112 0,550379 2,70184 215,445 3,04367 3,33539





01-2011 SEK GBP NOK ISK CHF 1 EUR = 8,91218 0,847117 7,81993 156,068 1,27794 1 BGN = 4,55679 0,433131 3,99833 79,7976 0,653412 1 CZK = 0,364524 0,0346486 0,319849 6,38346 0,0522701 1 DKK = 1,19597 0,113679 1,04940 20,9436 0,171494 1 LVL = 12,6710 1,20440 11,1181 221,892 1,81693 1 LTL = 2,58114 0,245342 2,26481 45,2004 0,370118 1 HUF = 0,0323695 0,00307678 0,0284024 0,566848 0,00464156 1 PLN = 2,29126 0,217788 2,01045 40,1241 0,328551 1 RON = 2,09086 0,198740 1,83461 36,6147 0,299815 1 SEK = 1 0,0950517 0,877443 17,5118 0,143393 1 GBP = 10,5206 1 9,23122 184,234 1,50858 1 NOK = 1,13967 0,108328 1 19,9577 0,163421 1 ISK = 0,0571044 0,00542787 0,0501059 1 0,00818837 1 CHF = 6,97385 0,662876 6,11915 122,124 1

Note: all cross rates involving ISK are calculated using ISK/EUR rate data from the Central Bank of Iceland

reference: Jan-11 1 EUR in national currency 1 unit of N.C. in EUR BGN 1,95580 0,511300 CZK 24,4488 0,0409018 DKK 7,45184 0,134195 LVL 0,703352 1,42176 LTL 3,45280 0,289620 HUF 275,326 0,00363206 PLN 3,88963 0,257094 RON 4,26244 0,234607 SEK 8,91218 0,112206 GBP 0,847117 1,18047 NOK 7,81993 0,127878 ISK 156,068 0,00640746 CHF 1,27794 0,782508

Note: ISK/EUR rates based on data from the Central Bank of Iceland

1. Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 determines that the rate for the conversion into a currency of amounts denominated in another currency shall be the rate calculated by the Commission and based on the monthly average, during the reference period specified in paragraph 2, of reference rates of exchange of currencies published by the European Central Bank.
5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the decisions taken by the ONP are decisions of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors taken into account by the Commission when calculating the level of the fine for Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA and Suez Environnement Company SA pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.
(14)

Despite AUO and CMI's claims, I consider that the right for the parties to be heard on the new […] documents was respected by the Commission. First, I do not consider that the timing of the communication of the […] documents by the Commission was inappropriate. The Commission cannot be required to determine, already prior to the oral hearing, which parts of the replies to the Statement of Objections it may wish to use in a final decision. Second, the parties were given the opportunity to comment in writing on the new […] documents. The right to be heard orally only pertains to objections on which the Commission relies, and the Letter did not add any objections to those which were already made in the Statement of Objections. The Commission was therefore under no obligation to hear the parties orally on these documents specifically. Third, while the Letter could have stated more specifically to which objections the documents related, I consider that the context in which the documents would potentially be used by the Commission was sufficiently clear in this case for the parties to usefully comment on the documents, and therefore exercise in full their right to be heard.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.
32.

The EDPS recommends: — that references to this Opinion are included in the preambles of the proposed regulations, — inserting provisions in the proposed regulations emphasising the full applicability of existing data protection legislation. The EDPS also suggests that the reference to Directive 95/46/EC be clarified by specifying that the provisions will apply in accordance with the national rules which implement Directive 95/46/EC, — specifying the kind of personal information that can be processed and transferred under the proposed regulations, defining the purposes for which personal data can be processed and transferred by the competent authorities concerned and ESMA and fix a proportionate data retention period for the above processing or at least introduce precise criteria for its establishment, — limiting competent authorities’ access to documents and information to specifically identified and serious violations of the proposed regulations and in cases where a reasonable suspicion (which should be supported by concrete initial evidence) exists that a breach has been committed, — introducing a requirement for competent authorities to request documents and information by formal decision, specifying the legal basis and the purpose of the request and what information is required, the time limit within which the information is to be provided as well as the right of the addressee to have the decision reviewed by a court of law, — clarifying the legal basis of the fund manager databases by introducing more detailed provisions in the proposed regulations. Such provisions must comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. In particular, the provision establishing the database must (i) identify the purpose of the processing operations and establish which are the compatible uses; (ii) identify which entities (ESMA, competent authorities, Commission) will have access to which data stored in the database and will have the possibility to modify the data; (iii) ensure the right of access and appropriate information for all the data subjects whose personal data may be stored and exchanged; (iv) define and limit the retention period for the personal data to the minimum necessary for the performance of such purpose, — that, as the proposed regulations are too general in cases of cross border exchanges of information, investigatory powers of the competent authorities and the establishment of ESMA databases of fund managers, essential elements of the processing of personal data should not be left to be decided by delegated acts, but included in the relevant substantive articles of the proposed regulations, — including references in the proposed regulations to the need to consult the EDPS in so far as the delegated and implementing acts concern the processing of personal data.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 280/7

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva

2012/C 280/04

1. Further to a complaint filed by Siemens AG (‘Siemens’), which was later withdrawn, the Commission decided to open proceedings on 21 May 2010 in relation to a number of contractual restrictions as regards a range of products within the field of civil nuclear technology, agreed between Siemens and Areva SA (‘Areva’) in the framework of their former joint venture Areva NP (the ‘JV’).

2. On 16 December 2011, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2). In its preliminary assessment, the Commission expressed the concern that the post-JV non-compete and confidentiality clauses, agreed between Areva and Siemens in their shareholders agreement, may constitute an infringement of the competition rules due to their excessive product scope and duration.

3. On 16 February 2012, Areva and Siemens submitted commitments to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. On 14 March 2012, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union summarising the case and the commitments and inviting interested third parties to submit their observations on the commitments (3). On 17 April 2012 and 18 April 2012 respectively, the Commission informed Areva and Siemens of the outcome of the market test following the publication of the notice.

4. In its decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission makes the commitments offered by Areva and Siemens binding upon them and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action on its part.

5. I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings in the present case (4). In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 8 June 2012. Michael ALBERS

(1) Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29 (the ‘Terms of Reference’).

(2) 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 L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(3) Notice published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva, OJ C 75, 14.3.2012, p. 10.

(4) In accordance to Article 15(1) of the Terms of Reference, parties to the proceedings offering commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage of the procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/10

Executive Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter: ‘the Amendment’)

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website: http://www.edps.europa.eu)

2013/C 100/04

I. Introduction

I.1. Consultation of the EDPS

1. On 25 September 2012, the Commission adopted the Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter: ‘the Amendment’). The Amendment to the Commission proposal was sent to the EDPS for consultation.

2. Before the adoption of the Amendment, the EDPS was given the possibility to provide informal comments. Previously, the EDPS had issued an Opinion on the legislative proposals on the future of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter: ‘the CAP’) (1).

I.2. Context of the Amendment

3. In the Schecke ruling (2), the ECJ declared invalid certain provisions on the publication of information of natural persons which were beneficiaries of CAP funds. The Amendment adds a new chapter on transparency to the Proposal for a Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP (3). The chapter contains new provisions on the publication of beneficiaries of CAP funds which try to take into account the ECJ judgment in the Schecke case.

IV. Conclusion

20. The EDPS welcomes the effort of the Commission in striking a balance between the principle of transparency and the beneficiaries' rights to privacy and personal data protection.

21. However, he recommends the following: — applying the exemption from publication for beneficiaries below the threshold only to natural persons (Article 110b); — better justifying in recital 70c why other less intrusive measures would not fulfil the purpose of transparency and why other ways of publication have been considered less appropriate; — including an additional provision to ensure that in case of small communities only aggregated data are published; — justifying in the Preamble the duration chosen in Article 110a(3) for the publication of the data; — complement the information to be provided to data subjects in Article 110c.

Done at Brussels, 9 October 2012. Giovanni BUTTARELLI Assistant European Data Protection Supervisor

(1) See the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the legal proposals for the common agricultural policy after 2013 (OJ C 35, 9.2.2012, p. 1).

(2) ECJ, 9.11.2010, Schecke and Eifert, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09.

(3) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (COM(2011) 628 final).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/27

The European EIB Prize

2013/C 39/04

The European EIB Prize has been created to recognise and stimulate excellence in economic and social research, and its implementation and diffusion. Research should be of specific relevance to European development and integration. The EIB Prize will be awarded annually, starting in 2013. It consists of an ‘Outstanding Contribution Award’ of EUR 40 000 and a ‘Young Economist Prize’ of EUR 25 000. The topic for the 2013 EIB Prize is ‘Growth, employment and convergence, with applications to the European Union’.

Please click here for more details and nomination forms: http://institute.eib.org/2013/01/1st-european-eib-prize/
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/10

Notifications under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

The possibility for a Member State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents pursuant to Article 21(c)

2013/C 272/09

CROATIA

The obligation to carry ID documents and other documents for State border crossing for third-country nationals is laid down in Article 139(2) and (3) of the Aliens Act (Official Journal 130/2011, 74/2013). It is applied to all foreigners present on Croatian territory.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 368/14

Annual Report 2012

2013/C 368/09

On 12 September 2013, the European Ombudsman presented his Annual Report for the year 2012 to the European Parliament.

The Annual Report as well as a shorter version are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 24 official languages (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

Paper copies of these publications can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office:
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision. In particular, concerning the product market definition, The Advisory Committee agrees that the impact of the notified transaction must be assessed on the following markets: (a) With regard to the production and supply of stainless steel products: (i) Production of slabs; (ii) Hot rolled flat products: while separate markets for Hot Black Band and Hot White Band can be considered, it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; (iii) Cold rolled flat products (excluding precision strip), without distinguishing between commodities vs. specialties, or by grade/family, surface finish or end application; (iv) Precision strip; (b) Ferrochrome, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; (c) With regard to the distribution of stainless steel flat products: Stockists versus stainless steel service centres, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case.
38.

The EDPS also: — welcomes that the Communication concludes that neither new EU-level law enforcement databases nor new EU information exchange instruments are needed, — emphasises the need for a full evaluation process of the instruments and initiatives in the justice and home affairs area, the outcome of which should lead to a comprehensive, integrated and well-structured EU policy on information and exchange management and encourages the Commission to pursue the assessment of other existing instruments, — encourages the Commission to carry out reflections on (i) the effectiveness of data protection principles in light of technological changes, the developments relating to IT large-scale systems and the growing use of data initially collected for purposes not related to the combat of crime, as well as on (ii) the effectiveness for public security of the current tendency to a widespread, systematic and proactive monitoring of non-suspected individuals and its real usefulness in the fights against crimes; the outcome of these reflections should lead to a comprehensive, integrated and well-structured EU policy on information and exchange management in this area, — underlines that the ongoing discussions on the proposal for a directive should not prevent the Commission from making an inventory of data protection problems and risks, and of possible improvements within the current legal context, and recommends using these discussions in particular on the distinction on processing of data of suspects and non-suspects for further development of the European Information Exchange Model, — fully subscribes to the need for reviewing existing instruments to align them with the proposed directive and encourages the Commission to take further action, — encourages the Commission to pursue the assessment of existing instruments along and after their full implementation, — recommends that the guidance which the Council is invited to give as regards the choice of channel takes into account the consequences in terms of purpose limitation and responsibilities, — encourages the Commission to justify more clearly the choice of the Europol channel using the SIENA tools as default channel and to assess whether this choice is in compliance with the principle of privacy by design, — notes with satisfaction that the Communication recalls that information may only be actually exchanged and used where legally permitted, which includes compliance with data protection rules, and invites the Commission to start working on harmonised conditions for SPOCs, to ensure that the requirements are similar in all Member States and effectively protect individuals, — recommends including trainings on information security and data protection in the scheme envisaged by the Commission as well as in the trainings Member States are invited to ensure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 10/5

Corrigendum to European Institute for Gender Equality — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

( Official Journal of the European Union C 408 of 15 November 2014 )

(2015/C 10/05)

On page 10:

for:

‘http://www.acer.europa.eu/The_agency/Organisation/Administrative_Board/Pages/Opinions.aspx’,

read:
56.

More specifically, the EDPS recommends that: (a) any future legislative proposal concerning the establishment of an EU standard on marking should specify if any personal data will be processed, and if so, which ones and in relation to whom; (b) as concerns firearms licensing the necessity of processing medical and ethnic data as well as criminal checks is assessed, and the conditions under which those special categories of data may be processed are respected, as set forth in Article 6 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA and Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC. The future legislation should contain specific safeguards, such as: indicating the purpose of the processing, listing the exact types of data that can be processed, restricting access to the sensitive data only to relevant persons with a need to know and subject to professional secrecy obligations (e.g. a health professional, authorised official authorities), ensuring that the medical/ethnic/criminal grounds for refusing a license are clearly stated, and specifying the modalities for the exercise of data subjects’ rights; (c) the necessity and proportionality of the compulsory registration and screening of firearms brokers is sufficiently established before this measure is put in place; (d) as to the possible use of biometric sensors in smart guns, evidence of the risks to security justifying the use of biometric data is provided in the relevant proposal. The proposal should indicate the types of biometric data to be processed and the security measures governing access to the data, the prevention of data manipulation and the conditions for updating the biometric data in the case of a change of owner; (e) the update of the guidance to law enforcement officers should include references to the rules set forth in the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, in particular as regards the processing of special categories of data. He also advises assessing the necessity of processing data relating to the ethnic origin of the possessor of the firearm; (f) as regards cross-border cooperation, the cross-border exchange of information between official authorities in the EU should involve, as much as possible, the use of existing secure channels; (g) if a central online repository of factual information on ballistics and weapons types is created, it is specified in the relevant legislation that no personal data will be processed; (h) as concerns firearms data collection plan, it should be ensured that new functionalities to be introduced in national registers, SIS II and iArms are in compliance with existing rules on access to these databases. Any plan for extending the access to those databases to other entities/users should require amending the current legal base. Access to the search tool in those databases should be restricted to authorised users only and the results of these searches should be in the form of a ‘hit’ or ‘no hit’ reply.