do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012090EN.01000201.xml










27.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 March 2012
2012/C 90/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3276




JPY


Japanese yen


109,82




DKK


Danish krone


7,4356




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83520




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9277




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2054




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6090




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,630




HUF


Hungarian forint


292,63




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6968




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1376




RON


Romanian leu


4,3640




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3767




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2631




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3223




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3136




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6195




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6734




KRW


South Korean won


1 513,68




ZAR


South African rand


10,1261




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3699




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5140




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 184,35




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0817




PHP


Philippine peso


57,087




RUB


Russian rouble


38,5000




THB


Thai baht


40,837




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4021




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8545




INR


Indian rupee


67,9800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-209/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet (Article 82 EC — Postal undertaking with a dominant position subject to a universal service obligation with regard to certain addressed mail — Low prices charged to certain former customers of a competitor — No evidence relating to intention — Price discrimination — Selectively low prices — Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor — Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers — Objective justification)
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, dominant position, postal and telecommunications services, reduced price








C_2012151EN.01000401.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
(Case C-209/10) (1)

(Article 82 EC - Postal undertaking with a dominant position subject to a universal service obligation with regard to certain addressed mail - Low prices charged to certain former customers of a competitor - No evidence relating to intention - Price discrimination - Selectively low prices - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers - Objective justification)
2012/C 151/06
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) — Abuse of a dominant position — Postal undertaking holding a dominant position and subject to the obligation to distribute addressed letters and parcels, applying selective price reductions for distribution of unaddressed mail at levels lower than its overall average costs, but higher than its incremental average costs — Abuse aimed at eliminating a competitor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a policy by which a dominant undertaking charges low prices to certain major customers of a competitor may not be considered to amount to an exclusionary abuse merely because the price that undertaking charges one of those customers is lower than the average total costs attributed to the activity concerned, but higher than the average incremental costs pertaining to that activity, as estimated in the procedure giving rise to the case in the main proceedings. In order to assess the existence of anti-competitive effects in circumstances such as those of that case, it is necessary to consider whether that pricing policy, without objective justification, produces an actual or likely exclusionary effect, to the detriment of competition and, thereby, of consumers’ interests.


(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-327/09: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, agricultural product, aid to agriculture








C_2012151EN.01002703.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/27





Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission
(Case T-327/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 151/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Philippe Connefroy (Le Rozel, France); Jean-Guy Gueguen (Carantac, France); and EARL de Cavagnan (Grézet-Cavagnan, France) (represented by: C. Galvez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Philippe Connefroy and Jean-Guy Gueguen and EARL de Cavagnan are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
Case T-261/11: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Xrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, mining industry








C_2012151EN.01002901.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/29





Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission
(Case T-261/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Xrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 151/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Goldfields Ltd (Whitehorse, Yukon (Canada)) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos SA (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


European Goldfields Ltd shall pay the costs.










3.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by Ellinikos Xrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomixanias Xrysou.






(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
Case T-134/12: Action brought on 27 March 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, administrative contract, audit, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2012157EN.01000901.xml










2.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/9





Action brought on 27 March 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
(Case T-134/12)
2012/C 157/16
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission Ref. Ares (2012) 39854 of 19January 2012 in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of the debit notes corresponding to audit 09-INFS-001/041;










—


order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct at issue in the amount of EUR 732 788.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings has entered into a number of contracts with the Commission in relation to R&D, all regulated on the basis of Commission Decision C(2003) 3834 of 23 October 2003, which provides for a core contract of the type FP 5 or FP 6 and for the general conditions FP 5 and FP 6.
In relation to those contracts, and on the basis of the results of an investigation carried out by OLAF and an audit performed by the Commission, the Commission adopted a decision revoking subsidies.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, as a result of the means of execution of the said audit.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, by denying the applicant the applicable legal framework throughout the procedure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure on the part of the Commission to comply with its duty to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, as a result of the tone adopted by DG INFSO in its audit report.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to have regard for the right to good administration, as a result of failure on the part of the auditors to comply with their duty of impartiality and equality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, particularly with regard to the lack of accreditation of the external auditors and the origin of the audit process itself.










7.


Seventh plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to privacy.
Case T-368/08: Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Community fisheries, equal treatment, fishing vessel, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law








C_2012151EN.01003302.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/33





Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission
(Case T-368/08) (1)

2012/C 151/57
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, pressure equipment, safety standard








C_2012090EN.01000301.xml










27.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/3





Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment (1)

(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 90/03
According to the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 3 of Directive 97/23/EC, the reference of the following European Approval for Materials (EAM) is published:







Number


Short name


Full title




0045-01:2012/01


EAM-X2CrMnNiN21-5-1


EAM-X2CrMnNiN21-5-1 Lean duplex steel — Sheet, plate and strip





Note:

Materials used for the manufacture of pressure equipment conforming with EAMs are presumed to conform to the applicable essential requirements of Annex I of Directive 97/23/EC. Original copies of this European Approval for Materials may be obtained from TÜV NORD Systems GmbH & Co. KG, Grosse Bahnstrasse 31, 22525 Hamburg, Germany. Tel. +49 4085572368. Fax +49 4085572710. E-mail: tuevnord@tuev-nord.de. An administration charge of EUR 60 is payable with the order.
A reference list of published EAMs is accessible from the website:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/pressure-and-gas/documents/ped/materials/published/index_en.htm operated by the European Commission.


(1)  OJ L 181, 9.7.1997, p. 1.
Case T-420/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM — Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR — Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS — Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01002401.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/24





Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM — Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)
(Case T-420/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR - Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS - Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 133/46
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Annunziata Del Prete (Naples, Italy) (represented by: R. Bocchini, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2), relating to opposition proceeding between Giorgio Armani SpA and Ms Annunziata Del Prete

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2);










2.


Orders OHIM and Ms Annunziata Del Prete to each pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani SpA before the Board of Appeal;










3.


Orders OHIM and Ms Del Prete to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/194/10 — English-language (EN) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), legal profession








CA2012090EN.01000101.xml










27.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 90/1





RESERVE LIST (1)

OPEN COMPETITION
EPSO/AD/194/10
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE (EN) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)
(2012/C 90 A/01)
Court of Justice






HILL


Richard




MACKENZIE


Gordon




MAMDANI


Geoffrey Aasif




MILTON


Elliot




SINFIELD-HAIN


Sandra




YATES


Paul




The reserve list will be valid until 23 February 2013 and may be extended.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, aircraft, economic concentration, electronics industry, holding company, maintenance, merger control, new technology








C_2012090EN.01000101.xml










27.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 90/01
On 22 March 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 32012M6505. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.