do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015070EN.01000501.xml










27.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 February 2015
(2015/C 70/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1317




JPY


Japanese yen


134,54




DKK


Danish krone


7,4679




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73010




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4146




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0745




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,5640




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,515




HUF


Hungarian forint


302,88




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1535




RON


Romanian leu


4,4278




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8085




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4357




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4112




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7760




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4919




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5293




KRW


South Korean won


1 240,60




ZAR


South African rand


12,9381




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0831




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6965




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 537,82




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0483




PHP


Philippine peso


49,767




RUB


Russian rouble


68,8165




THB


Thai baht


36,570




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2264




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8425




INR


Indian rupee


69,8838






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-41/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Gestión de Activos Isorana (L’Wren Scott) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark L’Wren Scott — Earlier national word mark LOREN SCOTT — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01001901.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/19





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Gestión de Activos Isorana (L’Wren Scott)
(Case T-41/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark L’Wren Scott - Earlier national word mark LOREN SCOTT - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 127/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LS Fashion, LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: R. Black and S. Davies, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Gestión de Activos Isorana, SL (La Orotava, Spain) (represented by: F. Brandolini Kujman, J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2011 (Case R 1584/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Gestión de Activos Isorana, SL, and LS Fashion, LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LS Fashion, LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.7278 — General Electric/ALSTOM (Thermal Power — Renewable Power & Grid business))  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2015070EN.01000101.xml










27.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/1





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.7278 — General Electric/ALSTOM (Thermal Power — Renewable Power & Grid business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 70/01)
On 23 February 2015, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301) or by post, under reference M.7278 — General Electric/ALSTOM (Thermal Power — Renewable Power & Grid 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’).
Case C-612/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, reduced price, traveller








C_2015213EN.01002204.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/22





Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG
(Case C-612/14) (1)

(2015/C 213/41)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7497 — Daimler/Kamaz/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2015070EN.01000102.xml










27.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7497 — Daimler/Kamaz/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 70/02)
On 23 February 2015, 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 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7497. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-826/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spain v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Regime of taxation on companies enabling undertakings that are tax resident in Spain to amortise the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies that are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for a stay of execution — Prima facie Case — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, foreign enterprise, goodwill, principle of legal certainty, shareholding








C_2015127EN.01002801.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/28





Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-826/14 R)
((Interim measures - State aid - Regime of taxation on companies enabling undertakings that are tax resident in Spain to amortise the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies that are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for a stay of execution - Prima facie Case - Lack of urgency))
(2015/C 127/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 final of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.35550 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain and concerning the regime for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 8 January 2015 delivered in Case T-826/14 R is cancelled.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-100/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, advertising, child, consumer information, equal treatment, equality before the law, food inspection, foodstuff, health control, principle of proportionality








C_2015155EN.01003102.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/31





Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission
(Case T-100/15)
(2015/C 155/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: Rechtsanwälte M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1924/2006 (1)

The applicant claims that there are no grounds to justify the refusal to authorise the five health claims which have nonetheless received five favourable scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority. Those five health claims neither infringe generally accepted nutrition and health principles, nor convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers. They are also neither ambiguous nor misleading.
Second plea in law, alleging a lack of proportionality
The applicant claims that, in view of the favourable opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the applicant’s five health claims, the absolute ban on advertising resulting from the rejection of those health claims was disproportionate.
Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
The applicant submits that the defendant has refused to authorise scientifically uncontested health claims despite having authorised similar health claims in the past.
Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient grounds
Finally, the applicant claims that the contested regulation does not provide sufficient grounds; it cannot be discerned whether the defendant took into account the arguments of the applicant and of the public, nor whether it even carried out an independent appraisal of those arguments.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).
Case T-103/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, environmental protection, glass industry, renewable energy








C_2015138EN.01006201.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/62





Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-103/15)
(2015/C 138/81)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Flabeg Deutschland GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Küper and E.-M. Schwind, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 25 November 2014 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), file number C(2014) 8786 final, in particular Articles 1, 2, 3(1) and (2), 4 and 5 (determination of the classification as State aid and the incompatibility of the EEG-Act 2012 including its special compensation regime with the common market) and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 7 (order for the immediate partial recovery from the recipients);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law: Conditions of Article 107 TFEU are not met.
The applicant asserts that the EEG surcharge system and the special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 already lack the classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the event that a classification of the special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 as State aid in this sense were to be affirmed, this would find its justification in Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU (promotion of the execution of an important project of common European interest or the development of certain economic activities or areas without adversely affecting trading conditions contrary to the common interest) and would therefore not be contrary to State aid law.










2.


Second plea in law: Inapplicability of the Environmental and Energy State Aid Guidelines (EEAG) relevant to the adjustment plan
The applicant asserts that the relevant EEAG with regard to the recovery amount pursuant to Article 3 of the Commission decision at issue, which apply from 1 July 2014, are, in the absence of the classification as State aid of the EEG surcharge system and special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 instruments referred to and in the light of the principle of legality of administrative actions also applicable at EU level, not applicable to those instruments.
Case F-36/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, pay, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015146EN.01005202.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/52





Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice
(Case F-36/15)
(2015/C 146/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions fixing the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses;










—


order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
Case T-430/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — EESC v Achab (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Naturalisation — Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of overpayments — Paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, expatriate worker, indemnification








C_2015127EN.01002301.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/23





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — EESC v Achab
(Case T-430/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Naturalisation - Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of overpayments - Paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations))
(2015/C 127/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented initially by M. Arsène, subsequently by M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Mohammed Achab (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 in Achab v EESC (F-21/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:95), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Mohammed Achab in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2014 to 31 October 2014 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product








C_2015071EN.01000101.xml










27.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/1





Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2014 to 31 October 2014
(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))
(2015/C 071/01)
—   Modification of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted










Date of the decision


Name of the medicinal product


Holder of the marketing authorisation


Number of the entry in the Community Register


Date of notification




15.10.2014


Advagraf


Astellas Pharma Europe B.V. Sylviusweg 62, NL-2333 BE Leiden, Nederland


EU/1/07/387


17.10.2014




30.10.2014


JETREA


ThromboGenics NV Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001 Leuven, België


EU/1/13/819


3.11.2014




30.10.2014


NexoBrid


MediWound Germany GmbH Eisenstr. 5, D-65428 Ruesselsheim, Deutschland


EU/1/12/803


3.11.2014




Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:





The European Medicines Agency




30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf




UK — LONDON E14 5EU






(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Case T-106/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Universal Utility International v OHIM (Greenworld) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Greenworld — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law, water management








C_2015127EN.01002601.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/26





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Universal Utility International v OHIM (Greenworld)
(Case T-106/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Greenworld - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 127/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Universal Utility International GmbH & Co.KG (Kaarst, Germany) (represented by: J. Mietzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Greenworld) (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2013 (Case R 1658/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Greenworld as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


Universal Utility International GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
Case C-97/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2015-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Netherlands, information technology applications, multimedia, screen, television equipment








C_2015171EN.01001701.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-97/15)
(2015/C 171/19)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Must the last paragraph of Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 of the CN — whether or not having regard to Attachments A and B to the Information Technology Agreement — be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays described in this judgment are to be classified as ‘hard disk drives’ in subheading 8471 70 50 of the CN, even though the apparatus has features and characteristics such that it is capable of reproducing on a television set or video monitor multimedia files stored on the hard disks, after converting those files into analogue signals?










2.


If question 1 must be answered in the negative, must heading 8521 of the CN then be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays can be classified under it, even though their video reproducing function is not their specific function, but is their principal function?