do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015165EN.01000301.xml










20.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 May 2015
(2015/C 165/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1180




JPY


Japanese yen


134,36




DKK


Danish krone


7,4590




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72185




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3133




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0420




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3545




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,357




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,07




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0486




RON


Romanian leu


4,4480




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8900




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4027




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3618




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6668




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5103




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4885




KRW


South Korean won


1 219,29




ZAR


South African rand


13,2540




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9384




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5330




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 690,46




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0207




PHP


Philippine peso


49,862




RUB


Russian rouble


55,2035




THB


Thai baht


37,375




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3653




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9139




INR


Indian rupee


71,2153






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-230/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2015 — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of jurisdiction, intellectual property, multilateral agreement, territorial jurisdiction








C_2015254EN.01000801.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2015 — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA
(Case C-230/15)
(2015/C 254/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brite Strike Technologies Inc.

Defendant: Brite Strike Technologies SA

Questions referred







1)


Must the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) (BCIP) (whether or not on the grounds set out in paragraphs 28 to 34 of the judgment of the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of 26 November 2013) be considered to be a subsequent convention, with the result that Article 4.6 of the BCIP cannot be considered to be a special rule for the purposes of Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)?
If that question is answered in the affirmative:










2)


Does it follow from Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 that the Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg courts all have international jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute?










3)


If not, how should it be determined, in a case such as the present, whether the Belgian, Netherlands or Luxembourg courts have international jurisdiction? Can Article 4.6 of the BCIP (nonetheless) be applied with a view to (further) determining international jurisdiction?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7479 — Kingspan/Steel Partners) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2015165EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7479 — Kingspan/Steel Partners)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 165/01)
On 16 March 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 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 32015M7479. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-456/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Applicant’s withdrawal from the settlement procedure — Fines — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Cooperation — Failure to apply the likely range of fines indicated during the settlement procedure)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal nutrition, cartel, competition policy, fine, foodstuffs legislation, phosphate, restriction on competition, single market








C_2015221EN.01000602.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/6





Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
(Case T-456/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Applicant’s withdrawal from the settlement procedure - Fines - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Cooperation - Failure to apply the likely range of fines indicated during the settlement procedure))
(2015/C 221/08)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France); and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir and M. Truffier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Mongin and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5001 final of 20 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38866 — Animal feed phosphates), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Case T-153/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, repression, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015221EN.01002002.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/20





Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
(Case T-153/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 221/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria); and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicants under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7579 — Royal Dutch Shell/Keele Oy/Aviation Fuelling Services Norway) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, aviation fuel, economic concentration, fuel, merger control, oil industry








C_2015165EN.01000401.xml










20.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7579 — Royal Dutch Shell/Keele Oy/Aviation Fuelling Services Norway)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 165/05)






1.


On 12 May 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Shell Exploration and Production Holding B.V. (‘SEPH’, the Netherlands), ultimately controlled by Royal Dutch Shell plc (‘RDS’, United Kingdom), and St1 Group Oy and St1 Nordic Oy (collectively, ‘St1’, Finland) controlled by Keele Oy, will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Aviation Fuelling Services Norway AS (‘AFSN’, Norway), currently a 100 % subsidiary of SEPH, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for SEPH: worldwide exploration, production and sale of oil products and chemicals, power generation, and the production of energy from renewable sources,
—   for St1 Group Oy: manufacture, distribution and sale of liquid fuels in Sweden and traffic fuels to consumers and the corporate sector in the Nordic countries,
—   for AFSN: the marketing and sale of aviation fuel in Norway.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7579 — Royal Dutch Shell/Keele Oy/Aviation Fuelling Services Norway, 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’).
European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (07657/2015 — C8-0103/2015 — 2014/0236(NLE))
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Croatia, South Africa, accession to the European Union, consent procedure, cooperation agreement (EU), development aid, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2016353EN.01016901.xml










27.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 353/169





P8_TA(2015)0200
Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement with South Africa (Protocol to take account of the accession of Croatia) ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (07657/2015 — C8-0103/2015 — 2014/0236(NLE))
(Consent)
(2016/C 353/24)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (07657/2015),










—


having regard to the draft Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (13175/2014),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0103/2015),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Development (A8-0146/2015),












1.


Gives its consent to the conclusion of the protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of South Africa.
Case T-155/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Kaddour v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, repression, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015221EN.01002102.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Kaddour v Council
(Case T-155/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 221/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicant under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-310/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council (Dumping — Imports of oxalic acid originating in India and China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Community industry — Determination of injury — Article 9(4), Article 14(1) and Article 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to make representations — Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, India, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_2015221EN.01000701.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/7





Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council
(Case T-310/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of oxalic acid originating in India and China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Community industry - Determination of injury - Article 9(4), Article 14(1) and Article 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to make representations - Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
(2015/C 221/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (Yuan Ping City, Xin Zhou, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 106, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd;










2)


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd, other than the costs incurred by the latter as a result of the European Commission’s intervention;










3)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd as a result of the European Commission’s intervention.






(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
Case T-154/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Jaber v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, repression, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015221EN.01002101.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Jaber v Council
(Case T-154/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 221/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicant under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7461 — AMDS Italia/CLN/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, steel








C_2015165EN.01000102.xml










20.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7461 — AMDS Italia/CLN/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 165/02)
On 20 March 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 32015M7461. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.