do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011122EN.01000701.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 April 2011
2011/C 122/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4302




JPY


Japanese yen


118,23




DKK


Danish krone


7,4576




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87800




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9210




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2842




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7635




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,125




HUF


Hungarian forint


266,88




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9785




RON


Romanian leu


4,0885




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1936




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3622




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3694




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,1240




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8154




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7835




KRW


South Korean won


1 557,28




ZAR


South African rand


9,7827




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3399




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3580




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 422,61




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3271




PHP


Philippine peso


61,973




RUB


Russian rouble


40,4869




THB


Thai baht


42,992




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2647




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7398




INR


Indian rupee


63,6220






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-188/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Peter Hehenberger v Republic of Austria
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, State aid, agri-environmental plan, aid recipient








C_2011211EN.01001103.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Peter Hehenberger v Republic of Austria
(Case C-188/11)
2011/C 211/22
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Question referred

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 (2) preclude the laying down of rules by the provider of support requiring repayment by the recipient, in the event that an on the-spot check (area measurement) is prevented, of all support already given in the context of an agri-environmental measure during the commitment period, even if it has been awarded and disbursed for a number of years?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

(2)  Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) (OJ 2004 L 231, p. 24).
Case C-187/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, removal, third country








C_2011211EN.01001102.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva
(Case C-187/11)
2011/C 211/21
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Elena Vermisheva.

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Case C-193/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT, interpreting, travel agency, traveller








C_2011204EN.01001501.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/15





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-193/11)
2011/C 204/28
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents in cases involving the sale of travel services to persons who are not travellers, as provided for in Article 119(3) of the Law of 11 March 2004 on the taxation of goods and services (the Polish Law on VAT), the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)











—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission’s view, the application by the Republic of Poland, on the basis of Article 119 of the Polish Law on VAT, of the special VAT scheme for travel agents also to cases in which the recipient of travel services is not a traveller is incompatible with Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC as currently in force.
In support of its contention, the Commission submits that Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC correspond to the wording previously set out in Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive. Five out of the six official language versions at that time (that is to say, all of the language versions except for the English) were entirely consistent and consistently used the term ‘traveller’ throughout the text of Article 26. The use of the term ‘customer’ [‘nabywca’] is found solely in a number of language versions of Article 306 of Directive 2006/112/EC which are based on the English-language version. In those cases, however, the further provisions relating to the special scheme (Articles 307 to 310) use the notion of ‘traveller’, which indicates that the notion of ‘customer’ was wrongly used in Article 306.
Furthermore, even if it were to be agreed that the purpose of the special VAT scheme for travel agents, that is to say, the simplification of account settling, would be more effectively achieved by an interpretation which took account of customers, it appears from the Court’s case-law that application of that scheme based exclusively on a purposive construction, contrary to the unequivocal decision of the European Union legislature which follows from the content of the provisions currently in force, cannot be supported.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case F-27/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, health expenditure, social security








C_2011186EN.01003302.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/33





Action brought on 20 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-27/11)
2011/C 186/61
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the defendant refusing to authorise medical benefits requested by the applicant for his son, his wife and himself.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decisions and, as necessary, the decision of the AECE rejecting the complaint;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6119 — Arla/Hansa)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, food industry, merger control








C_2011122EN.01000601.xml










20.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6119 — Arla/Hansa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 122/04
On 1 April 2011, 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 32011M6119. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.