do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011264EN.01001001.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/10





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2011
2011/C 264/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4036




JPY


Japanese yen


108,38




DKK


Danish krone


7,4477




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87800




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9729




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2052




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5425




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,456




HUF


Hungarian forint


276,35




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7091




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2186




RON


Romanian leu


4,2358




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4647




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3222




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3877




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,9401




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6913




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6978




KRW


South Korean won


1 503,97




ZAR


South African rand


10,0307




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9760




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4923




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 016,44




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1933




PHP


Philippine peso


59,407




RUB


Russian rouble


41,4688




THB


Thai baht


42,094




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3255




MXN


Mexican peso


17,4757




INR


Indian rupee


64,7970






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Special Report No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?’
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, co-financing, tourism policy








C_2011264EN.01002001.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/20





Special Report No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?’
2011/C 264/10
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Latest publication of COM documents other than legislative proposals and legislative proposals adopted by the Commission OJ C 189, 29.6.2011
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, directory, official document








C_2011264EN.01001101.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/11





Latest publication of COM documents other than legislative proposals and legislative proposals adopted by the Commission
2011/C 264/06

OJ C 189 of 29.6.2011


History of previous publications:







 



OJ C 140 of 11.5.2011











 



OJ C 121 of 19.4.2011











 



OJ C 94 of 26.3.2011











 



OJ C 88 of 19.3.2011











 



OJ C 26 of 28.1.2011











 



OJ C 296 of 30.10.2010
Case C-120/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — European Air Transport SA v Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Air transport — Directive 2002/30/EC — Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports — Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport)
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, noise level, noise protection, urban area








C_2011311EN.01001002.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/10





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — European Air Transport SA v Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
(Case C-120/10) (1)

(Air transport - Directive 2002/30/EC - Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports - Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport)
2011/C 311/13
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: European Air Transport SA

Defendants: Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(e), 4(4) and 6(2) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40) — Limits on noise levels to be complied with by aircraft over-flying urban territories located near an airport — Concept of ‘operating restrictions’ — Restrictions adopted in connection with aircraft which are marginally compliant — Whether it is possible to impose such restrictions on the basis of the noise level as measured on the ground — Effect of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘operating restriction’ is a prohibition, absolute or temporary, that prevents the access of a civil subsonic jet aeroplane to a European Union airport. Consequently, national environmental legislation imposing limits on maximum noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying areas located near the airport, does not itself constitute an ‘operating restriction’ within the meaning of that provision, unless, in view of the relevant economic, technical and legal contexts, it can have the same effect as prohibitions of access to the airport in question.


(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Case C-144/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, illegal migration, removal, return migration








C_2011340EN.01000503.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/5





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah
(Case C-144/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the factual context of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
2011/C 340/10
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Mestre

Criminal proceedings against

Asad Abdallah

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mestre — Direct applicability of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Interpretation of Article 2 of that directive — National legislation providing for a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 to be imposed on a foreign national who unlawfully enters or remains in the national territory, as well as for the possibility for the court to replace that fine with deportation for a period of less than five years, in the case of a criminal conviction.

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy), by decision of 16 March 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 152, 21.05.2011.
Case F-86/11: Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, disability insurance, occupational disease








C_2011340EN.01004203.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/42





Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
(Case F-86/11)
2011/C 340/89
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;










—


In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage;










—


Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint;










—


Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.
2011/532/EU: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 8 September 2011 appointing a judge to the Court of Justice
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, appointment of members, judge








L_2011234EN.01004201.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 234/42








            DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 8 September 2011
         
appointing a judge to the Court of Justice
(2011/532/EU)


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and following the resignation of Ms Pernilla LINDH, a judge should be appointed to the Court of Justice for the remainder of Ms Pernilla LINDH’s term of office, which runs until 6 October 2012.












(2)


Mr Carl Gustav FERNLUND has been proposed for the vacant post.












(3)


The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on Mr Carl Gustav FERNLUND’s suitability to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Carl Gustav FERNLUND is hereby appointed Judge to the Court of Justice for the period from 6 October 2011 to 6 October 2012.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 8 September 2011.


The President

J. TOMBIŃSKI
Case F-69/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Illegality — Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in that case — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, lawyer, legal expenses








C_2012138EN.01003002.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/30






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-69/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Illegality - Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in that case - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
(2012/C 138/65)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that the defendant had sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer who did not yet represent him in that case.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.










3.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 75.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6091 — Galenica/Fresenius Medical Care/Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2011264EN.01002301.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6091 — Galenica/Fresenius Medical Care/Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 264/12






1.


On 31 August 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Galenica Ltd (‘Galenica’, Switzerland) and Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA (‘Fresenius’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd (‘JV’, Switzerland) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Galenica: development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products worldwide, operation of pharmacies, logistical and database services,










—


for Fresenius: provision of dialysis products, such as haemodialysis machines, dialyzers and related disposable products, as well as the provision of dialysis services,










—


for the JV: research, development, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products against hyperphosphatemia and iron deficiency anaemia for patients suffering primarily from CKD Stages 3, 4 and 5.














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.6091 — Galenica/Fresenius Medical Care/Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma JV, 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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6280 — Procter & Gamble/Teva OTC business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetic product, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2011264EN.01002501.xml










8.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6280 — Procter & Gamble/Teva OTC business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 264/14






1.


On 26 August 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking ‘The Procter & Gamble Company’ (USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of the OTC business of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Israel) by way of acquiring shares in a newly created company to which both parties will contribute assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for The Procter & Gamble Company: Beauty and health care,










—


for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd: Manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations.














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.6280 — Procter & Gamble/Teva OTC business, 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 C-220/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisances — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3, 5 and 6 — Failure to identify sensitive areas — Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges in sensitive areas)
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, pollution, sensitive area, waste management, water treatment








C_2011311EN.01001201.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/12





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-220/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisances - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3, 5 and 6 - Failure to identify sensitive areas - Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges in sensitive areas)
2011/C 311/16
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M.J. Lois, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that,






—


by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and all the coastal waters of the Island of Porto Santo;










—


by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira;










—


by failing to ensure, with regard to an agglomeration along the estuary of the River Tagus, namely Quinta do Conde, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 of the directive;










—


by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomerations of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, Beja, Chaves and Viseu and four agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of the directive;




the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/271;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Case T-525/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011305EN.01000602.xml










15.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/6





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
(Case T-525/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 305/07
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 (Case R 1315/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.