do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010003EN.01000101.xml










7.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 January 2010
2010/C 3/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4350




JPY


Japanese yen


132,69




DKK


Danish krone


7,4407




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89860




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1870




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4823




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1880




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,338




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


268,88




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7095




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0953




RON


Romanian leu


4,1585




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1185




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5677




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4920




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,1290




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9570




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0029




KRW


South Korean won


1 627,80




ZAR


South African rand


10,5320




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,7973




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2950




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 376,56




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8517




PHP


Philippine peso


66,017




RUB


Russian rouble


42,8500




THB


Thai baht


47,581




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4882




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3752




INR


Indian rupee


65,7660






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-11/98: Order of the Court of 7 January 2010 — van Hest v Council and Commission
Date: 2010-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU)








C_2010063EN.01005001.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/50





Order of the Court of 7 January 2010 — van Hest v Council and Commission
(Case T-11/98) (1)

2010/C 63/88

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
Case T-7/10: Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon Ygia AE v OHIM
Date: 2010-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), health care, service, trade-mark law








C_2010080EN.01003302.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/33





Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ v OHIM
(Case T-7/10)
2010/C 80/56
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Alexiou and S. Foteas, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the application;










—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R190/2009-2;










—


register the word sign ‘υγεία’ (hygeia) as a Community trademark indicating the link between the applicant company and the services it provides;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word sign ‘υγεία’ for services in Class 44, medical services — application for registration No 712900

Decision of the examiner: rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: confirmation of the decision of the examiner and rejection of the application for registration

Pleas in law:

The application seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R 190/2009-2.
On the basis of the first plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly ascribed purely descriptive character to the sign, despite the fact that it has a distinctive function in abstracto.
On the basis of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly rejected the distinctive function of the sign in consequence of the use reserved to it. According to the applicant, even if the descriptive character in abstracto of the word sign is accepted, the acquisition of distinctive function can be founded on use and constitutes a ground for setting aside the refusal to register.
Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2009/164/EU of 22 December 2009 amending, for the purpose of adaptation to technical progress, Annexes II and III to Council Directive 76/768/EEC concerning cosmetic products ( OJ L 344, 23.12.2009 )
Date: 2010-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: analytical chemistry, approximation of laws, committee (EU), cosmetic product








L_2010003EN.01003001.xml










7.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 3/30







Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2009/164/EU of 22 December 2009 amending, for the purpose of adaptation to technical progress, Annexes II and III to Council Directive 76/768/EEC concerning cosmetic products
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 344 of 23 December 2009
)

On page 43, in the Annex, point 2(b), table, in the column ‘Reference number’:
for:

               ‘X’
            
read:

               ‘206’.
Case F-2/10: Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2010-01-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, European official, action by staff, health expenditure, health insurance, redemption








C_2010063EN.01005301.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/53





Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-2/10)
2010/C 63/94
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Lecce, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s requests for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the request of 17 March 2009 was rejected;










—


annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 9 June 2009;










—


annul, quatenum opus est, the decision, in whatever form, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 September 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 17 March 2009;










—


annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 22 September 2009;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant the difference between the amount paid by him in respect of medical expenses incurred between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2007 inclusive, in relation to which numerous claims for reimbursement were made in the period between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2009, and the amount reimbursed to him to date under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, or such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable in that connection, together with interest on the difference between such amounts or on such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, from the first day of the fifth month after the date on which the addressee of the request of 17 March 2009 was in a position to inspect it, at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Tribunal may consider appropriate.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.