do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010123EN.01000201.xml










12.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 May 2010
2010/C 123/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2698




JPY


Japanese yen


117,38




DKK


Danish krone


7,4425




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85960




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6563




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4095




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8410




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,590




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


276,10




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7076




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0499




RON


Romanian leu


4,1798




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9521




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4200




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3031




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8808




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7725




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7607




KRW


South Korean won


1 443,55




ZAR


South African rand


9,6145




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,6715




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2618




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 548,38




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0792




PHP


Philippine peso


57,150




RUB


Russian rouble


38,3840




THB


Thai baht


41,072




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2687




MXN


Mexican peso


15,9449




INR


Indian rupee


57,4970






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-30/10: Action brought on 12 May 2010 — de Fays v Commission
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), incapacity for work, occupational disease








C_2010179EN.01005902.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/59






Action brought on 12 May 2010 — de Fays v Commission
(Case F-30/10)
(2010/C 179/104)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe de Fays (Malèves Sainte Marie Wastinnes, Belgium) (represented by: N. Soldatos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise the occupational nature of the disease suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 8 September 2009 and 12 February 2010 and recognise that the applicant has been unfit to work because of occupational disease since 15 May 2005;










—


alternatively and secondarily, again appoint a medical committee consisting of doctors with expertise in diseases caused by ionising radiation with the task of establishing whether, in the course of carrying out his professional duties, the applicant was exposed to the risk of contracting a disease caused by ionising radiation;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-236/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Sophie Jeanjean v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, liquidation








C_2010209EN.01002202.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Sophie Jeanjean v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
(Case C-236/10)
()
2010/C 209/29
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sophie Jeanjean

Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)







(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

(2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others
Case T-432/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — EMC Development v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European cement market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Harmonised standard for cement — Binding nature — Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements)
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European standard, action for annulment (EU), cement, complaint to the Commission, horizontal agreement, restriction on competition








C_2010179EN.01003201.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/32






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — EMC Development v Commission
(Case T-432/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European cement market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Harmonised standard for cement - Binding nature - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements)
(2010/C 179/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EMC Development AB (Luleå, Sweden) (represented by: M. Elvinger and W. -N. Schelp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially É. Gippini Fournier and B. Doherty, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/205249 of 28 September 2005 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against European Portland cement producers, the European Cement Association (Cembureau) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in relation to the European cement market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EMC Development AB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.
Case C-234/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, export refund, interpretation of the law, sugar, sugar levy, sugar product








C_2010221EN.01001702.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
(Case C-234/10)
()
2010/C 221/28
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tereos

Defendant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation No 1260/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide, for all categories of sugar exported, the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities exported, regardless of whether refunds have actually been paid for those quantities or not?










2.


Is Regulation No 1193/2009 (2) invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 in so far as it fixes a production levy for sugar calculated on the basis of an average loss the calculation of which involves, as regards sugar exported in processed products, a multiplication between the unit amount of the export refund relating to those products and the total quantities exported, including the quantities exported without benefiting from a refund, and not a division of the expenditure actually incurred by the total amount of the quantities exported, with or without a refund?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, South Africa, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, iron and steel product, originating product, steel








C_2010123EN.01001001.xml










12.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/10





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2010/C 123/05
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry




Steel ropes and cables


People's Republic of China
India
Ukraine
South Africa


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 283/2009 (OJ L 94, 8.4.2009, p. 5) and extended to imports consigned from Moldova by Council Regulation (EC) No 760/2004 (OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 1) and extended to imports consigned from Morocco by Council Regulation (EC) No 1886/2004 (OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 1)


17.11.2010






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5790 — Lidl/Plus Romania/Plus Bulgaria) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: discount store, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, shopping centre








C_2010123EN.01001501.xml










12.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5790 — Lidl/Plus Romania/Plus Bulgaria)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 123/07






1.


On 5 May 2010, 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 Lidl Romania GmbH (Germany), WE Beteiligungs GmbH (Germany) and S.C. Lidl Romania S.R.L. (Romania), belonging to the Schwarz group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Pludi Market SRL (Romania), Tengelmann Real Estate International SCS (Romania) and Tengelmann Real Estate International SRL (Romania) (together ‘Plus Romania’), and by which the undertaking Lidl Bulgaria GmbH (Germany), also belonging to the Schwarz group, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Plus-Bulgaria Targovia KD (Bulgaria), Bulgaria Targovia EOOD (Bulgaria), Tengelmann Real Estate International Bulgaria KD (Bulgaria) and Real Estate International Bulgaria EOOD (Bulgaria) (together ‘Plus Bulgaria’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Lidl/Schwarz group: retail market for daily consumer goods through supermarkets and discount chains (Lidl, Kaufland etc.) in several EU countries,










—


for Plus Romania: retail market for daily consumer goods through discount chains in Romania,










—


for Plus Bulgaria: retail market for daily consumer goods through discount chains in Bulgaria.














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.










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), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5790 — Lidl/Plus Romania/Plus Bulgaria, 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’).
Case T-218/10: Action brought on 12 May 2010 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT)
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), postal service, trade-mark law








C_2010195EN.01002602.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/26





Action brought on 12 May 2010 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT)
(Case T-218/10)
2010/C 195/41
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: DHL International GmbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K.-U. Jonas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Service Point Solutions, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2010 in Case R 62/2009-2;










—


Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘SERVICEPOINT’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 39.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Service Point Solutions, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘Service Point’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 16, 20, 35, 38, 39 and 42; figurative mark including the word element ‘service point’ for goods and services in Class 16; and figurative mark including the word element ‘service point’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks, and infringement of Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the Board of Appeal failed to have regard to various documents.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Decision No 298 of 12 May 2010 terminating the procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-9 ‘Miziya’ , located in the province of Vratsa
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: Bulgaria
Subjects: Bulgaria, competition law, energy site, exploitation of resources, gas field, oilfield, petroleum exploration, tendering








C_2010236EN.01001201.xml










1.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/12





DECISION No 298
of 12 May 2010
terminating the procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-9 ‘Miziya’, located in the province of Vratsa
2010/C 236/11
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
Pursuant to Article 50(2), in conjunction with Articles 23(4) and 46(2)(2), of the Subsurface Resources Act and having regard to an infringement noted in the conduct of the procedure, resulting in a tenderer who does not meet the mandatory requirements laid down in the Subsurface Resources Act and the tender dossier being deemed eligible to take part in the procedure,
THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS HAS DECIDED THAT:






1.


The procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being underground natural resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-9 ‘Miziya’, situated in the province of Vratsa shall be terminated.










2.


The Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism shall take the necessary steps to return the deposits to the tenderers after this Decision has entered into force.










3.


This Decision shall be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days following its communication to the tenderers.







Prime Minister

Boyko BORISOV

Chief Secretary of the Council of Ministers

Rosen ZHELYAZKOV
Case T-30/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Reagens v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Financial loss — Absence of exceptional circumstances — No urgency)
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, competition policy, fine, summary procedure








C_2010179EN.01003903.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/39






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Reagens v Commission
(Case T-30/10 R)
(Application for interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Financial loss - Absence of exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
(2010/C 179/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and L. Toffoletti, D. Gullo and E. De Giorgi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/38.589 — heat stabilisers)

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-560/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — European Commission v Meierhofer (Appeals — Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision that a candidate had failed the oral test — Commission’s refusal to comply with a measure of organisation of procedure)
Date: 2010-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appeal, appointment of staff, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2010179EN.01003801.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/38






Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — European Commission v Meierhofer
(Case T-560/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Decision that a candidate had failed the oral test - Commission’s refusal to comply with a measure of organisation of procedure)
(2010/C 179/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. -G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Re:

APPEAL against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I A 1-0000 and II A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meirehofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC A-I-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000;










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.