do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011381EN.01000101.xml










30.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 December 2011
2011/C 381/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2889




JPY


Japanese yen


100,24




DKK


Danish krone


7,4343




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83600




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9414




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2186




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7740




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,910




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,75




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6990




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4411




RON


Romanian leu


4,3025




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4650




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2799




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3189




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0181




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6815




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6805




KRW


South Korean won


1 488,70




ZAR


South African rand


10,5089




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1461




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5375




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 861,52




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0981




PHP


Philippine peso


56,511




RUB


Russian rouble


41,5360




THB


Thai baht


40,961




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4201




MXN


Mexican peso


18,0061




INR


Indian rupee


68,3790






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-665/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor v NCG Banco, S.A.
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultancy, credit institution, financial instrument, interest, interpretation of the law, investment, real estate credit








C_2012080EN.01001201.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor v NCG Banco, S.A.
(Case C-665/11)
2012/C 80/16
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor

Defendant: NCG Banco, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


If a credit institution offers a client with whom it has previously signed a mortgage loan contract an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on that loan, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point (4) of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive? (1)











2.


Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?










3.


In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?










4.


Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?










5.


In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012065EN.01001501.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/15





Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
(Case T-660/11)
2012/C 65/29
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLYTETRAFLON’, for goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 6131015

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 432120 of the word mark ‘TEFLON’, for amongst others, goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15(1), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark and that genuine use for the earlier mark was proven.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2012 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2011381EN.01000201.xml










30.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/2





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2012
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
2011/C 381/02
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending the Implementing Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 225, 30.7.2011, p. 8.

































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.1.2012


…



2,07




2,07




3,66




2,07




1,72




2,07




1,85




2,07




2,07




2,07




2,07




2,07




6,39




2,07




2,07




2,57




2,07




2,38




2,07




2,07




4,91




2,07




6,85




2,76




2,07




2,07




1,74





1.8.2011


31.12.2011


2,05


2,05


3,97


2,05


1,79


2,05



2,07



2,05


2,05


2,05


2,05


2,05


5,61


2,05


2,05


2,56


2,05


2,20


2,05


2,05


4,26


2,05


7,18


2,65


2,05


2,05


1,48




1.7.2011


31.7.2011



2,05




2,05



3,97



2,05



1,79



2,05



1,76



2,05




2,05




2,05




2,05




2,05



5,61



2,05




2,05



2,56



2,05



2,20



2,05




2,05



4,26



2,05



7,18


2,65



2,05




2,05



1,48




1.5.2011


30.6.2011



1,73




1,73



3,97



1,73



1,79



1,73



1,76



1,73




1,73




1,73




1,73




1,73



5,61



1,73




1,73



2,56



1,73



2,20



1,73




1,73



4,26



1,73



7,18



2,65




1,73




1,73



1,48




1.3.2011


30.4.2011


1,49


1,49


3,97


1,49


1,79


1,49


1,76


1,49


1,49


1,49


1,49


1,49


5,61


1,49


1,49


2,56


1,49



2,20



1,49


1,49


4,26


1,49


7,18



2,23



1,49


1,49


1,48




1.1.2011


28.2.2011



1,49




1,49




3,97




1,49




1,79




1,49




1,76




1,49




1,49




1,49




1,49




1,49




5,61




1,49




1,49




2,56




1,49




2,64




1,49




1,49




4,26




1,49




7,18




1,76




1,49




1,49




1,48
Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, carriage of passengers, invitation to tender








C_2012109EN.01001402.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/14





Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
(Case T-668/11)
2012/C 109/33
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:






—


a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;










—


a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and










—


a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.






(1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.

(2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6449 — DCC Energy/Swea Energi) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distribution business, economic concentration, fuel, merger control, oil industry








C_2011381EN.01000901.xml










30.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6449 — DCC Energy/Swea Energi)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 381/04






1.


On 20 December 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which DCC Energy Limited (‘DCC Energy’, Ireland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Swea Energi Holding AB (‘Swea’, Sweden) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DCC Energy: is mainly active in the sale, marketing and distribution of oil and LPG in Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Austria,










—


for Swea: is active in the Swedish market for fuel distribution. The company distributes heating oil, diesel, gasoline, wood-pellets and lubricants in Sweden.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6449 — DCC Energy/Swea Energi, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-664/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L. v Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.
Date: 2011-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultancy, credit institution, financial instrument, interest, interpretation of the law, investment, real estate credit








C_2012080EN.01001102.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L. v Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.
(Case C-664/11)
2012/C 80/15
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L.

Defendant: Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


If a credit institution offers a client an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on previous financial transactions, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point (4) of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive? (1)











2.


Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?










3.


In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?










4.


Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan that has been concluded with the institution itself or with a different institution constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?










5.


In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).