do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015111EN.01000401.xml










1.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

31 March 2015
(2015/C 111/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0759




JPY


Japanese yen


128,95




DKK


Danish krone


7,4697




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72730




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2901




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0463




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7035




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,533




HUF


Hungarian forint


299,43




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0854




RON


Romanian leu


4,4098




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8131




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4154




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3738




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3422




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4388




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4774




KRW


South Korean won


1 192,58




ZAR


South African rand


13,1324




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,6710




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6450




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 053,78




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9873




PHP


Philippine peso


48,057




RUB


Russian rouble


62,4400




THB


Thai baht


35,018




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4958




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5124




INR


Indian rupee


67,2738






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-161/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, bank deposit, damages, economic discrimination, economic policy, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_2015294EN.01006801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/68






Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB
(Case T-161/15)
(2015/C 294/83)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Dalmar investments Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands); Darlows Consultants Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas); Forestborne Ltd (Tortola); International Corporate Management Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Kraxis Investments Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); Magnamox Management Ltd (Nicosia); Megamatic Technologies Ltd (Nicosia); Windward Yachting Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Chupit Ltd (Nicosia); Coburg Investments (Overseas) Ltd (Nicosia); First Trade International Ltd (Tortola); Fitinvest Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus); Halman Consultants (Overseas) Ltd (Tortola); Limtan Investments Ltd (Lanarca, Cyprus); Minnesota Trading Ltd (Nicosia); Protoconsult Ltd (Nicosia); Transcoal Trading Ltd (Nicosia); and Veft Management Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: R. Nowinski, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;










—


order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they breached the principle of proportionality in drawing up the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality negotiated by the Commission and the ECB under the authority of the European Stability Mechanism.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7574 — O1 Group/CA Immo/Immofinanz) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2015111EN.01000601.xml










1.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7574 — O1 Group/CA Immo/Immofinanz)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 111/05)






1.


On 20 March 2015, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking O1 Group Limited (‘O1 Group’, Cyprus), controlled by Mr Boris Mints (Russia), acquires both directly and through its control of CA Immobilien AG (‘CA Immo’, Austria) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Immofinanz AG (‘Immofinanz’, Austria) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


O1 Group and other undertakings controlled by Mr Boris Mints are active in the real estate sector and also manage pension funds in Russia. CA Immo is a real estate company active in the field of real estate services, in particular the renting of commercial property in Austria, Germany and central and eastern Europe. CA Immo is also active in the utilisation and development of real estate assets.










—


Immofinanz is a real estate company active in the purchase and management of existing buildings, the execution of its own development projects and the sale of property.














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 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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. They can be sent to the Commission under reference number M.7574 — O1 Group/CA Immo/Immofinanz by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  ОJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (‘the Merger Regulation’).

(2)  ОJ C 366, 14.12.2013, р. 5.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7590 — Berkshire Hathaway/Detlev Louis Motorrad Vertriebsgesellschaft) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, miscellaneous industries, textile industry, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2015111EN.01000801.xml










1.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7590 — Berkshire Hathaway/Detlev Louis Motorrad Vertriebsgesellschaft)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 111/07)






1.


On 25 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Detlev Louis Motorrad Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of business activities including property and casualty insurance, freight rail transportation, utilities and energy, finance, manufacturing, services and retailing. In particular it owns Brooks Sports Inc., which is engaged in design and wholesale of performance running shoes and Fruit of the Loom Inc., which manufactures basic clothing products, including sports and casual wear.










—


Detlev Louis Motorrad Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH supplies motorcycle clothing, spare parts and supplies.














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.7590 — Berkshire Hathaway/Detlev Louis Motorrad Vertriebsgesellschaft, 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 T-160/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015198EN.01004001.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/40





Action brought on 1 April 2015 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)
(Case T-160/15)
(2015/C 198/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Developpement (Baud, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MINICARGO’ — Application for registration No 11 278 751

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 in Case R 596/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009.
Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, customs regulations, exchange of information, harmonisation of standards, tariff nomenclature








C_2015111EN.01000201.xml










1.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/2





Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
(2015/C 111/02)
Binding tariff information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:
Amendments to the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC2055 — report of the 54th Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANISATION

(54th SESSION OF THE HSC IN SEPTEMBER 2014)
DOC. NC2055

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention







29.37


O/5




29.41


O/6





Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee







0303.90/1


O/2




0305.20/1


O/3




2009.90/1


O/4




3923.10/1-3


O/7




3923.90/2-3


O/8




6106.20/1


O/9




6109.90/1


O/10




6110.20/2


O/11




6110.30/2-3


O/12




6114.30/2


O/13




6202.13/1


O/14




6202.93/1


O/15




7115.90/1


O/16




8431.49/2


O/17




8433.90/1


O/18




8467.19/1


O/19




8517.70/3


O/20




8536.90/2


O/21




8714.10/1


O/17




9403.20/3-4


O/22




Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm
Case C-154/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 1 April 2015 — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2015228EN.01000301.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 1 April 2015 — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.
(Case C-154/15)
(2015/C 228/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo

Defendant: BBK Bank Cajasur, S.A.U.

Questions referred







1)


In such cases, is an interpretation according to which an unfair term declared void nonetheless produces effects until that declaration is made compatible with the interpretation of ‘non-binding’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1)? Therefore, even though the term has been declared void, will the effects produced by that term while it was in force be considered not to be invalidated or ineffective?










2)


Is an injunction that may be issued to desist from using a particular term (in accordance with Articles 6(1) and 7(1)) in an individual action brought by a consumer when such a declaration is made compatible with a limitation of the effects of a declaration of nullity? May (the courts) alter the reimbursement of any sums paid by the consumer — which the seller or supplier is obliged to reimburse — under the term subsequently declared void ex tunc, for want of information and/or of transparency?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-156/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 April 2015 — SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ v AS ‘Swedbank’
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of EU law, bank deposit, claim, credit institution, customers, financial legislation, guarantee, interpretation of the law, securities








C_2015198EN.01002401.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 April 2015 — SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ v AS ‘Swedbank’
(Case C-156/15)
(2015/C 198/32)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’

Respondent: AS ‘Swedbank’

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2002/47/EC (1) on financial collateral arrangements, having regard to recitals 1 and 4 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that those provisions apply only to accounts which are used for settlement in securities settlement systems, or as meaning that they apply equally to any account open in a bank, including a current account which is not used for securities settlement?










2.


Must Article 8 and Article 3 of Directive 2002/47/EC, having regard to recitals 3 and 5 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the purpose of that directive is to ensure especially favourable priority treatment for credit institutions in the event of the insolvency of their customers, in particular, over other creditors of those customers, such as workers, in respect of wages owing to them, the State, in respect of its tax claims, and secured creditors, whose claims are secured by securities protected by the presumption of authenticity resulting from registration in a public register?










3.


Must Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC be understood as an instrument for minimum harmonisation or for full harmonisation, that is to say, must it be interpreted as meaning that it allows Member States to extend that provision to persons who are expressly excluded from the scope of the directive?










4.


Is Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC a directly applicable provision?










5.


In the event that the purpose and scope of Directive 2002/47/EC are more limited than the actual purpose and scope of the national law, the adoption of which was formally justified on the basis of the obligation to transpose Directive 2002/47/EC, may the interpretation of that directive be used to invalidate a financial collateral clause based on national law, such as the clause at issue in the main proceedings?






(1)  Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43).
Case T-158/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, law of states, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2015178EN.01002101.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/21





Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission
(Case T-158/15)
(2015/C 178/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Abertis Telecom Satélites, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, M. Maragall de Gispert, M. Santa María Fernández, J. Panero Rivas, and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;










—


annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;










—


annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;










—


annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;










—


in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-826/14 Spain v Commission and T-12/15 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission.
The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.
Case C-155/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 1 April 2015 — George Karim v Migrationsverket
Date: 2015-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to refugees, interpretation of the law, right of asylum








C_2015198EN.01002301.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 1 April 2015 — George Karim v Migrationsverket
(Case C-155/15)
(2015/C 198/31)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: George Karim

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred







1.


Do the new provisions on effective legal remedies in Regulation No 604/2013 (1) (recital 19 in the preamble thereto and Article 27(1) and (5) thereof) mean that an applicant for asylum is also to be able to challenge the criteria in Chapter III of the regulation on the basis of which he or she is to be transferred to another Member State which has agreed to receive him or her, or can effective legal remedies be limited to mean only the right to an examination of whether there are systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions in the Member State to which the applicant is to be transferred (corresponding to the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-394/12)?










2.


In the event that the Court should consider that it is possible to challenge the criteria in Chapter III of the regulation, an answer is also requested to the following question. Does Article 19(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 mean that the regulation may not be applied where the applicant for asylum shows that he or she has been outside the territory of the Member States for at least three months?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (OJ L 180, p. 31).