do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012026EN.01000301.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 January 2012
2012/C 26/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3110




JPY


Japanese yen


100,53




DKK


Danish krone


7,4341




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83580




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8996




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2046




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6810




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,270




HUF


Hungarian forint


296,04




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6991




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2545




RON


Romanian leu


4,3380




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3478




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2427




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3185




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1707




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6042




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6523




KRW


South Korean won


1 481,36




ZAR


South African rand


10,3024




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2837




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5818




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 837,85




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0097




PHP


Philippine peso


56,525




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8950




THB


Thai baht


40,903




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2919




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0423




INR


Indian rupee


65,2350






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-49/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 31 January 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, damages, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, tax evasion








C_2012118EN.01001102.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 31 January 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani
(Case C-49/12)
2012/C 118/17
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret (Denmark)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents: Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that its scope extends to cover a case in which the authorities of a Member State bring a claim for damages against undertakings and natural persons resident in another Member State on the basis of an allegation — made pursuant to the national law of the first Member State — of a tortious conspiracy to defraud consisting in involvement in the withholding of VAT due to the first Member State?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6448 — OPTrust/PGGM/Global Via Infraestructuras/Global Via Inversiones)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, supplementary pension, urban infrastructure








C_2012026EN.01000101.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6448 — OPTrust/PGGM/Global Via Infraestructuras/Global Via Inversiones)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 26/01
On 24 January 2012, 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 32012M6448. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6461 — TPV/Philips TV Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, television








C_2012026EN.01001101.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6461 — TPV/Philips TV Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 26/07






1.


On 20 January 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking TPV Technology Limited, (‘TPV’, Bermuda) intends to acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the Philips' worldwide Colour TV business (‘Philips TV Business’, the Netherlands) with the exception of a number of countries outside the EEA.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


TPV is a display solution provider, active in the design and production of a full range of PC monitors and televisions both on a third-party OEM basis for its distribution worldwide and under its own brands AOC,










—


Philips TV Business operates in the manufacturing, branding, and distribution of Philips' branded Colour TV in the relevant territories falling within the transaction.














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.6461 — TPV/Philips TV 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’).
Notice for the attention of the persons to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia apply
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012026EN.01000201.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/2





Notice for the attention of the persons to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia apply
2012/C 26/02
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP (1), concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annex should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG K Coordination




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 27, 31.1.2012.
Case T-84/12: Action brought on 31 January 2012 — Uspaskich v Parliament
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, infringement of EU law, parliamentary immunity, rights of the defence








C_2012126EN.01001901.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/19





Action brought on 31 January 2012 — Uspaskich v Parliament
(Case T-84/12)
2012/C 126/38
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: Aivaras Raišutis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision No P7_TA(2011)0541 of the European Parlimanent of 1 December 2011 concerning a request for defence of the applicant’s immunity;










—


grant the applicant’s request of 11 April 2011 for renewal of consideration of the Principal State Prosecutor’s request that immunity be waived;










—


protect the applicant’s immunity;










—


award the applicant EUR 10 000 in damages;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
The first plea is connected with infringement of the right to reconsideration of an earlier decision when new facts giving rise to a presumption of fumus persecutionis have come to light.
The second plea is connected with infringement of the right to impartial consideration of the request, the same person having been appointed rapporteur in the second case concerning defence of immunity.
The third plea is connected with infringement of rights of the defence and the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly.
The fourth plea is connected with infringement of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, it being argued that the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol because it relied on a manifestly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution.
The fifth plea is connected with a manifestly incorrect assessment of fumus persecutionis. In the applicant’s submission, the European Parliament made an incorrect assessment as regards the binding nature of its previous decisions concerning immunity and as regards the concept of fumus, and it refused to consider the applicant’s arguments concerning fumus persecutionis on the basis of which he had to be recognised as a victim of political persecution.
Case T-206/08: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Wine sector — Prohibition on new vine plantations — National monitoring systems — Lump-sum financial correction — Procedural guarantees — Error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, Spain, agricultural expenditure, plantation, regulation of agricultural production, wine








C_2012073EN.01002601.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/26





Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-206/08) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Wine sector - Prohibition on new vine plantations - National monitoring systems - Lump-sum financial correction - Procedural guarantees - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
2012/C 73/49
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
Case T-205/10: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Cervecería Modelo v OHIM — Plataforma Continental (LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO — Earlier Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘victoria’ and earlier national word mark VICTORIA — Registration refused in part — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012073EN.01002703.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/27





Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Cervecería Modelo v OHIM — Plataforma Continental (LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO)
(Case T-205/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO - Earlier Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘victoria’ and earlier national word mark VICTORIA - Registration refused in part - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 73/54
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Plataforma Continental, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 322/2009-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between Plataforma Continental, SL and Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-378/09: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP — Earlier national figurative marks SPAR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, provision of services, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012073EN.01002702.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/27





Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spar v OHIM — Spa Group Europe (SPA GROUP)
(Case T-378/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark SPA GROUP - Earlier national figurative marks SPAR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 73/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Schenefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 123/2008-1) in relation to opposition proceedings between Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Spa Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Spar Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
Case C-8/11: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, natural gas, supplies contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2012109EN.01000805.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/8





Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG
(Case C-8/11) (1)

2012/C 109/18
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
Case T-527/09: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Ayadi v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Afghanistan, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence, terrorism








C_2012089EN.01002301.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/23





Order of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Ayadi v Commission
(Case T-527/09) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 89/37
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin (Ireland)) (represented by: initially B. Emmerson QC, S. Cox, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor, and subsequently by E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta, T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20), in so far as that act concerns the applicant

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by Mr Chafiq Ayadi and shall be required to refund to the cashier of the General Court the sums advanced by way of legal aid.










3.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6492 — SCOR/MAF/Essor JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control








C_2012026EN.01001001.xml










31.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6492 — SCOR/MAF/Essor JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 26/06






1.


On 20 January 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which SCOR SE (‘SCOR’, France) and Mutuelle des Architectes Français Assurances (‘MAF’, France), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Essor Participações Ltda in Brazil (‘Essor’, Brazil) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SCOR: a reinsurance group with operations in about 130 countries and is organised into two reinsurance divisions (i) Life and (ii) Non-Life,










—


MAF: a group of companies active in primarily providing primarily direct insurance services and in particular professional insurance cover for building designers such as building architects, interior architects, construction economists, landscape designers and construction engineers,










—


Essor: newly created Brazilian non-operational limited liability company that will become a direct insurance corporation upon receipt of regulatory approval from the Brazilian Superintendence of Private Insurance.














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.6492 — SCOR/MAF/Essor 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).