do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, interest








C_2009301EN.01001301.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/13





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 December 2009
2009/C 301/10

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4730




JPY


Japanese yen


130,03




DKK


Danish krone


7,4417




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90430




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4367




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5113




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4355




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,705




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


272,05




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7072




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1405




RON


Romanian leu


4,2382




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2020




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6074




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5472




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,4168




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0236




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0473




KRW


South Korean won


1 716,40




ZAR


South African rand


11,0565




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


10,0556




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2668




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 905,61




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0045




PHP


Philippine peso


68,075




RUB


Russian rouble


44,8505




THB


Thai baht


48,793




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5904




MXN


Mexican peso


19,0312




INR


Indian rupee


68,7000






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 19 June 2009 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.396 – Calcium Carbide
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), dominant position, metallurgical industry, opinion, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2009301EN.01001401.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/14





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 19 June 2009 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.396 – Calcium Carbide
2009/C 301/11






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices constitutes a single and continuous infringement for the time frame in which it existed.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as object a restriction of competition.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.










7.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5656 — Europ Assistance Holding/SFR Développement/Océalis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, consultancy, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, mobile phone, provision of services








C_2009301EN.01003401.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/34





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5656 — Europ Assistance Holding/SFR Développement/Océalis)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/18






1.


On 4 December 2009, 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 SFR Développement (‘SFRD’, FR) and Europ Assistance Holding (FR acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation joint control of the undertaking Ocealis (FR) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SFR Développement: investments into new companies active in the mobile communication sector and Internet. SFRD is a subsidiary of SFR, a group active in mobile communication, Internet, and television,










—


Europ Assistance Holding: assistance, support and counseling services to physical or legal entities, in France or abroad. It belongs to the Generali group.,










—


Océalis: provision of teleassistance services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5656 — Europ Assistance Holding/SFR Développement/Océalis, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case C-517/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium) lodged on 11 December 2009 — RTL Belgium SA (formerly TVI SA) v Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, audiovisual communications policy, audiovisual production, audiovisual programme, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, right of establishment








C_2010051EN.01001901.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium) lodged on 11 December 2009 — RTL Belgium SA (formerly TVI SA) v Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel
(Case C-517/09)
2010/C 51/30
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RTL Belgium SA (formerly TVI SA)

Defendant: Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel

Question referred

Can the notion of ‘effective control both over the selection of the programmes and over their organisation’ in Article 1(c) of the Directive of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1) [as amended by Directive 2007/65/EC] (the Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a Member State and licensed by the government of that Member State to provide an audiovisual media service does in fact exercise such control, even though it delegates, with an option to further delegate, to a third company established in another Member State, against payment of an indeterminate sum equal to the total advertising revenue generated by the broadcasting of that service, the actual production of all the programmes specific to that service, the communication to the public of programme scheduling information and the provision of financial and legal services, human resources, the management of infrastructure and other personnel-related services, and even though it is apparent that it is at the head offices of that third company that decisions are taken and implemented concerning the putting together of programmes and any deletions from or changes to the programming schedule in response to current events?


(1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298 p. 23)
Case C-516/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 11 December 2009 — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, parental leave, social security, social-security benefit, termination of a contract, unpaid leave, wage earner








C_2010063EN.01002502.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 11 December 2009 — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
(Case C-516/09)
2010/C 63/41
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Tanja Borger

Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship following the birth of a child, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer in order to draw childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit for the maximum statutory period, and then terminates the employment relationship?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is Article 1(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers — for a period of six months — a person who, following the end of the two-year statutory suspension of her employment relationship, agrees a further six-month period of unpaid leave with her employer, if she draws childcare allowance or a corresponding compensatory benefit during that period?






(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5558 — Nutreco/Cargill) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2009301EN.01000401.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5558 — Nutreco/Cargill)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/06
On 24 November 2009, 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 32009M5558. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-514/09 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v European Commission
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment








C_2010234EN.01002001.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/20





Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v European Commission
(Case C-514/09 P)
()
2010/C 234/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Hubert Ségaud (represented by: J.-P Ekeu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 21May 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ségaud to bear his own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5666 — Xerox/Affiliated Computer Services) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2009301EN.01003501.xml










11.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/35





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5666 — Xerox/Affiliated Computer Services)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 301/19






1.


On 4 December 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Xerox Corporation (‘Xerox’, USA) proposes to acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation sole control of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (‘ACS’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Xerox: supply of document production equipment and related software solutions and IT services,










—


for ACS: supply of business process outsourcing and IT outsourcing services.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5666 — Xerox/Affiliated Computer Services, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.