do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014436EN.01000601.xml










5.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 December 2014
(2014/C 436/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2311




JPY


Japanese yen


147,64




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78610




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2747




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2035




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7210




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,616




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1614




RON


Romanian leu


4,4290




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7556




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4692




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3998




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5440




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5888




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6187




KRW


South Korean won


1 373,54




ZAR


South African rand


13,7641




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5777




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6753




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 157,92




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2454




PHP


Philippine peso


54,846




RUB


Russian rouble


65,7875




THB


Thai baht


40,518




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1728




MXN


Mexican peso


17,3743




INR


Indian rupee


76,2063






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-547/12: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2014  — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, generic drug, market approval








C_2015056EN.01003002.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/30





Order of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
(Case T-547/12) (1)

(2015/C 056/42)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
Case T-794/14: Action brought on 5 December 2014  — AATC Trading/OHIM — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, shopping centre, trade-mark law








C_2015065EN.01003802.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/38





Action brought on 5 December 2014 — AATC Trading/OHIM — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)
(Case T-794/14)
(2015/C 065/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: AATC Trading AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALAÏA PARIS’ No 3 485 166

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2014 in Case R 1411/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-559/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fundamental rights, ownership, public order, ruling, third country








C_2015089EN.01000201.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
(Case C-559/14)
(2015/C 089/02)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

Defendant: Recoletos Limited

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7463 — CVC/Betafence) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2014436EN.01000701.xml










5.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7463 — CVC/Betafence)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 436/04)






1.


On 28 November 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 undertaking CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Betafence Holding NV (‘Betafence’, Belgium) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CVC: advice to and management of investment funds,
—   for Betafence: the production of fencing systems (both industrial and consumer), industrial mesh, cable and wire, and gabions.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7463 — CVC/Betafence, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7276 — GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis vaccines business (excl. influenza)/Novartis consumer health business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2014436EN.01001001.xml










5.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7276 — GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis vaccines business (excl. influenza)/Novartis consumer health business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 436/07)






1.


On 28 November 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which GlaxoSmithKline plc. (‘GSK’, United Kingdom) acquires the global human vaccines business of Novartis AG (‘Novartis’, Switzerland), with the exception of Novartis' human flu vaccine business, by way of purchase of assets. GSK and Novartis are also creating a new venture combining their non-prescription (over the counter — ‘OTC’ or ‘consumer health’) activities, under the sole control of GSK. The new venture will commercialise OTC products for various indications, including for instance cold and flu treatment, cold sore treatment and smoking cessation.










2.


The proposed concentration forms part of a three-part inter-conditional transaction whereby Novartis acquires a portfolio of oncology products from GSK. This part of the overall transaction has been notified on 28 November 2014 as case M.7275.










3.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


GSK is a pharmaceutical company active worldwide in research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, consumer health and dermatatological products,










—


Novartis is a pharmaceutical company active worldwide in research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals (via its subsidiary Sandoz), vaccines and consumer health products.














4.


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.










5.


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 M.7276 — GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis vaccines business (excl. influenza)/Novartis consumer health business, 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7011 — SNCF / SNCB / Thalys JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, economic concentration, merger control, rail transport








C_2014436EN.01000101.xml










5.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7011 — SNCF / SNCB / Thalys JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 436/01)
On 19 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7011. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-562/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, access to EU information, provision of documents








C_2015046EN.01003102.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/31





Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission
(Case C-562/14 P)
(2015/C 046/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Czech Republic and Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12,










—


Declare invalid the decision of the European Commission of 21 June 2012 to deny Mr and Mrs Spirlea access to the requested documents, and










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Sweden.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
By the first ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘the openness regulation’) by taking the view that the Commission, when it relies on the exception for investigations, may base its decision on a general presumption that access should be denied in an EU pilot procedure insofar as it constitutes a step which precedes the possible initiation of Treaty infringement proceedings, and that the Commission did not err in law in interpreting the above provision of the openness regulation as meaning that it could refuse a request for access to the requested documents in an EU pilot matter without examining the documents specifically and individually.
By the second ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation by ruling that the Commission’s assessment that there was no overriding public interest within the meaning of the final part of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation was not vitiated by any error.
By the third ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misapplied EU law by taking the view that when considering purpose under the openness regulation the lawfulness of the legal acts at issue in an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU should also be assessed in relation to the facts and law obtaining at the time when the legal acts were adopted.


(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Case C-558/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Mimoun Khachab v Delegación de Gobierno en Álava
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, economic situation, family migration, foreign national








C_2015046EN.01003101.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Mimoun Khachab v Delegación de Gobierno en Álava
(Case C-558/14)
(2015/C 046/36)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mimoun Khachab

Defendant: Delegación de Gobierno en Álava

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an application for family reunification to be refused on the grounds that the sponsor does not have stable and regular resources sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, according to a prospective assessment by the national authorities of the likelihood of the economic resources in question being retained in the year following the date of submission of the application, taking into account the pattern of those resources in the six months preceding that date?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7439 — EPH/Eggborough HoldCo 2) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, United Kingdom, coal, economic concentration, electrical energy, gas, merger control, power plant








C_2014436EN.01000801.xml










5.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7439 — EPH/Eggborough HoldCo 2)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 436/05)






1.


On 28 November 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Energetický a průmyslový holding (‘EPH’, Czech Republic), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Eggborough HoldCo 2 S.à r.l. (‘Eggborough’, Luxembourg), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   EPH: is active in coal extraction, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas supply, mainly in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany and Poland,
—   Eggborough: owns a coal-fired power plant producing electricity in the UK.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7439 — EPH/Eggborough HoldCo 2 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-560/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 5 December 2014 — MM v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: evidence, refugee, rights of the defence








C_2015081EN.01000501.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 5 December 2014 — MM v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
(Case C-560/14)
(2015/C 081/06)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MM

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

Question referred







1.


Does the ‘right to be heard’ in European Union law require that an applicant for subsidiary protection, made pursuant to Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1), be accorded an oral hearing of that application, including the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, when the application is made in circumstances where the Member State concerned operates two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, respectively?






(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, p. 12.
Case T-792/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS
Date: 2014-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, living conditions, reassignment, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)








C_2015046EN.01005701.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/57





Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS
(Case T-792/14 P)
(2015/C 046/73)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand Baie, Mauritius) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS;










—


give judgment itself:






—


annulling the contested decision;










—


ordering the EEAS to pay the costs of both proceedings.









Pleas in law and main arguments

It results from the appeal that the appellant applies to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) held, first, that the failure, by the EEAS, to adopt the general provisions (‘GP’) of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) was justified by the fact that the EEAS was still, as regards the application of that provision, in an adjustment period and, secondly, that the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt the GP can be successfully invoked by the appellant only where he shows that the EEAS applied that provision arbitrarily.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the EEAS had correctly reasoned the contested decision although the reasons which led the EEAS to diverge from the negative opinion of the Staff Committee were not set out.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law since it held that the EEAS could, in the absence of GP, take into account other parameters than those provided for by the regulations in order to assess the severity of the difficulty of the conditions of life in the places of employment of officials outside the European Union.