do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014155EN.01000101.xml










23.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 May 2014
2014/C 155/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3668




JPY


Japanese yen


138,96




DKK


Danish krone


7,4648




GBP


Pound sterling


0,81040




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9944




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2215




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1200




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,443




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,10




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1765




RON


Romanian leu


4,4082




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8697




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4799




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4915




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5973




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5963




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7119




KRW


South Korean won


1 400,72




ZAR


South African rand


14,1950




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5224




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6080




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 756,70




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3904




PHP


Philippine peso


59,575




RUB


Russian rouble


46,8738




THB


Thai baht


44,521




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0258




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6734




INR


Indian rupee


79,9031






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-252/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014  — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, deduction at source, residence, shareholder








C_2014235EN.01001101.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket
(Case C-252/14)
2014/C 235/15
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Does Article 63 TFEU constitute an obstacle to national legislation under which dividends from a resident company are taxed at source if the shareholder is resident in another Member State, while such dividends — if paid to a resident shareholder — are subject to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a fictive yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital?
Case T-358/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01004401.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/44





Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)
(Case T-358/14)
2014/C 253/58
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hoteles Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Torrente Tomás and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1227/2013-1 rejecting Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ by HOTELES CATALONIA S.A., which will consequently have to be registered by OHIM;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hoteles Catalonia, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ for services in Class 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘LA PEDRERA’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics, merger control, retail trade, telecommunications








C_2014155EN.01000401.xml










23.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 155/04






1.


On 16 May 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Carphone Warehouse plc (‘Carphone’, the United Kingdom) and Dixons Retail plc (‘Dixons’, the United Kingdom) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carphone: specialist mobile telecommunications retailer,
—   for Dixons: specialist electrical retailer.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the 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 M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-370/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, environmental protection, international sanctions, occupational safety, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2014261EN.01003302.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/33





Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council
(Case T-370/14)
2014/C 261/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Petropars Ltd (Teheran, Iran); Petropars International FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); and Petropars UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the March 2014 Decision;










—


annul the March 2014 Notice insofar as it applies to the applicants; and










—


order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs of this application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing set out in Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2) are not satisfied and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that the criteria were met and remain met because the applicants are not owned or controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing are not met because the Council has not proved that NIOC financially supports the Iranian government.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the maintenance of the designation of the applicants is in any event in violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to trade and to carry out their businesses and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. The applicants further allege that the continued listing represents a breach of the precautionary principle and of the principles of environmental protection and the protection of human health and safety, as it is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety of ordinary Iranian workers and the environment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to conduct a full and adequate review of the applicants’ designation and properly to consider the observations presented to it.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
Reorganisation measures — Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of Millburn Insurance Company Limited
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, United Kingdom, insurance company, liquidation








C_2014155EN.01000301.xml










23.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/3





Reorganisation measures
Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of Millburn Insurance Company Limited
2014/C 155/03
Publication made in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings






Insurance undertaking


Millburn Insurance Company Limited
Address of registered office: 32 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3BT, United Kingdom
Former registered office: 37-39 Lime Street, London, EC3M 7AY, United Kingdom




Date, entry into force and nature of the decision


On 9 December 2013, pursuant to paragraph 13 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, an administration order was made in respect of Millburn Insurance Company Limited by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court (case number 8499 of 2013) and Neil John Mather and Christopher Morris were appointed as Joint Administrators.




Competent authorities


High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL, United Kingdom
Prudential Regulation Authority, 20 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6DA, United Kingdom
Financial Conduct Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS, United Kingdom




Supervisory authority


Prudential Regulation Authority, 20 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6DA, United Kingdom
Financial Conduct Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS, United Kingdom




Administrators appointed


Neil John Mather and Christopher Morris of Begbies Traynor (Central) LLP, 32 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3BT, United Kingdom





E-mail: London@begbies-traynor.com




Tel. +44 2073983800








Applicable law


England
Insolvency Act 1986
Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004
Case T-364/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2014261EN.01003201.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/32





Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)
(Case T-364/14)
2014/C 261/56
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2014 in Case R 1201/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘B! O’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 038 008

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Boquoi Handels OHG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community trade mark ‘bo’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-142/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014  — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, economic support, import (EU), originating product, semi-metal, solar collector








C_2014235EN.01001802.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/18





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
(Case T-142/14 R)
((Application for interim measures - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
2014/C 235/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn (Germany)); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo (Italy)); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, (Madrid (Spain)) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66)

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-356/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01004201.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/42





Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)
(Case T-356/14)
2014/C 253/56
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;










—


order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69  571

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Special Report No 3/2014 ‘Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)’
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Commission, Schengen Information System, project evaluation








C_2014155EN.01000201.xml










23.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/2





Special Report No 3/2014 ‘Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)’
2014/C 155/02
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 3/2014 ‘Lessons from the European Commission’s development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://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: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case T-353/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Italy v Commission
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), linguistic discrimination, use of languages








C_2014212EN.01004301.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/43





Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-353/14)
2014/C 212/55
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14 Administrators (AD 5) for drawing up a reserve list of 137 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5), published in volume C 74 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 March 2014;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised are those set out in Case T-275/13 Italy v Commission (OJ 2014 C 74 A, p. 4).
Case T-553/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services relating to IT infrastructure and applications for the ECB — Rejection of the application — Action for annulment — Act open to challenge — Admissibility — Criteria for selecting candidates — Compliance of an application with the conditions laid down in the call for applications — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to exercise the power to ask for clarification in relation to an application — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of powers — Action for damages)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: candidate, computer equipment, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract








C_2014212EN.01002401.xml










7.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/24





Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB
(Case T-553/11) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services relating to IT infrastructure and applications for the ECB - Rejection of the application - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Admissibility - Criteria for selecting candidates - Compliance of an application with the conditions laid down in the call for applications - Obligation to state reasons - Failure to exercise the power to ask for clarification in relation to an application - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Action for damages))
2014/C 212/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and P. Pfeifhofer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of the decision of the ECB to reject the application of a temporary grouping of undertakings including the applicant to participate in a negotiated tendering procedure concerning information technology services, of the decision of the Procurement Review Body of the ECB to reject the appeal against that decision, and of all related decisions of the ECB and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.
Case T-141/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014  — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2014-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, semi-metal, solar collector








C_2014235EN.01001801.xml










21.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/18





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
(Case T-141/14 R)
((Application for interim measures - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
2014/C 235/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.