do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-12-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014468EN.01000101.xml










31.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 468/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 December 2014
(2014/C 468/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2160




JPY


Japanese yen


145,41




DKK


Danish krone


7,4436




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78230




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4746




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2028




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0420




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,728




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,98




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,45280




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3103




RON


Romanian leu


4,4847




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8587




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4878




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4132




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4340




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5536




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6085




KRW


South Korean won


1 334,19




ZAR


South African rand


14,1487




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5442




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6598




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 099,67




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2559




PHP


Philippine peso


54,420




RUB


Russian rouble


69,1315




THB


Thai baht


40,019




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2394




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9293




INR


Indian rupee


77,1686






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-848/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB
Date: 2014-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, indemnification, proof, psychological harassment








C_2015073EN.01004501.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/45






Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-848/14 P)
(2015/C 073/56)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, delete the reference to Article 270 TFEU, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, and set aside paragraphs 16 to 19, 22, 37, 41, 42, 45, 47 to 49, 51, and 53 to 66 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following the adoption of the requested measures of inquiry, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB.
The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal.






1.


Failure to give a ruling on the request for deletion of the EIB’s observations and documents;










2.


Failure to give a ruling on the exclusion of the president of the formation of the court;










3.


Incorrect interpretation of the judgment in Case T-37/10 P;










4.


Failure to provide a statement of reasons or provision of an incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the psychological harassment; the appellant asks the Court to order the defendant to cease that harassment;










5.


Need for the Appeals Committee to give its ruling on the merits as regards the 2006 Staff Report;










6.


Existence of an interest in the ruling on the annulment of the promotions of 2007, so as to prevent them from becoming definitive.