do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010035EN.01000301.xml










12.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 February 2010
2010/C 35/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3718




JPY


Japanese yen


123,03




DKK


Danish krone


7,4452




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87750




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9598




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4663




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0975




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,008




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


270,50




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7094




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0285




RON


Romanian leu


4,1045




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0758




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5446




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4502




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6590




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9633




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9377




KRW


South Korean won


1 585,77




ZAR


South African rand


10,5509




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3757




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3163




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 850,95




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7018




PHP


Philippine peso


63,404




RUB


Russian rouble


41,3730




THB


Thai baht


45,496




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5342




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9363




INR


Indian rupee


63,7900






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5599 — AMCOR/ALCAN) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010035EN.01000101.xml










12.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5599 — AMCOR/ALCAN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 35/01
On 14 December 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 32009M5599. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-86/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2010 — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, employment policy, interpretation of the law, social policy








C_2010113EN.01002402.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2010 — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH
(Case C-86/10)
2010/C 113/38
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Siegburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hüseyin Balaban

Defendant: Zelter GmbH

Question referred

Should Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the selection of workers to be dismissed on operational grounds, allows age groups to be formed in order to ensure a balanced age structure and to ensure that the selection between comparable workers will be made in such a way that the ratio of the number of workers to be selected from the respective age groups to the total number of comparable workers to be dismissed corresponds to the ratio of the number of workers employed in the respective age groups to the number of all comparable workers of the undertaking?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case F-13/10: Action brought on 12 February 2010 — Nicola v EIB
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, action for annulment (EU), staff assessment








C_2010134EN.01005301.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/53





Action brought on 12 February 2010 — Nicola v EIB
(Case F-13/10)
2010/C 134/89
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the staff report for 2008, both as regards the part relating to objectives and the part relating to assessment, and of the promotions decided upon on 18 March 2009. In addition, an order that the defendant pay compensation for the material and non-material damage caused to the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the provision of 23 September 2009, in so far as the Appeals Committee rejected the applicant’s appeal against the staff report for 2008.










—


Annul the staff report for 2008, both as regards the part relating to objectives and the part relating to assessment.










—


Annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including the guidelines issued by the HR Directorate for summarising the appraisal by using one of the first letters of the alphabet and the quantitative limits imposed in awarding the mark A or B+, and the promotions decided upon on 18 March 2009, given that, in the light of the view expressed by the applicant’s superiors, the EIB failed to take him into consideration under the heading ‘Promotions from Function E to D’.










—


Order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered and to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with interest, currency revaluation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded.
Case C-85/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain lodged on 12 February 2010 — Telefónica Móviles España S.A. v Administración del Estado (Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones)
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, interpretation of the law, mobile phone, quasi-fiscal charge








C_2010134EN.01001701.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain lodged on 12 February 2010 — Telefónica Móviles España S.A. v Administración del Estado (Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones)
(Case C-85/10)
2010/C 134/26
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telefónica Móviles España, S.A.

Defendant: Administración del Estado (Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones)

Questions referred







1.


On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) and, in particular, the requirements to ensure optimal use of scarce resources and to foster innovative services, is it contrary to those provisions for national legislation to separate the proceeds of a charge on this type of resource (the fee for allocation of public radio frequencies) from the specific purpose for which it was previously expressly earmarked (the funding of research and training in the field of telecommunications and the performance of public service obligations), without specifying any other particular purpose?










2.


Is it contrary to Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC and, in particular, the requirements to ensure optimal use of scarce resources and to foster innovative services, for a national provision to increase, significantly and without apparent justification, the fee for a DCS-1800 digital system whilst leaving it unchanged for first generation analogue systems such as TACS?






(1)  OJ L 117, p. 15.
Opinion No 1/2010 Improving the financial management of the European Union budget: Risks and challenges
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European Union, disclosure of information, financial management, general budget (EU), opinion








C_2010035EN.01000401.xml










12.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/4





OPINION No 1/2010
‘Improving the financial management of the European Union budget: Risks and challenges’
2010/C 35/05
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Opinion No 1/2010 ‘Improving the financial management of the European Union budget: Risks and challenges’ has just been published on its website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5764 — BNP Paribas/Dexia Epargne Pension) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, financial institution, insurance, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010035EN.01000201.xml










12.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5764 — BNP Paribas/Dexia Epargne Pension)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 35/03
On 8 February 2010, 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 French 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 32010M5764. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-456/07: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2010 — Commission v CdT (Action for annulment — Community pension scheme — Obligation on CdT to pay a contribution in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005 — Non-actionable measure — Measure not producing legal effects in respect of third parties — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, social-security benefit








C_2010100EN.01004001.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/40





Order of the General Court of 12 February 2010 — Commission v CdT
(Case T-456/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - Community pension scheme - Obligation on CdT to pay a contribution in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005 - Non-actionable measure - Measure not producing legal effects in respect of third parties - Manifest inadmissibility)
2010/C 100/62
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: initially, G. Versanden, and, subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the alleged decision by which CdT refused to pay into the general budget, in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005, a contribution representing the part of the financing of the Community pension scheme falling to the employer

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006 (formerly Case C-269/06).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5584 — Belgacom/BICS/MTN) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation, service, telecommunications








C_2010035EN.01000102.xml










12.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5584 — Belgacom/BICS/MTN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 35/02
On 26 October 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 32009M5584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.