do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015264EN.01000101.xml










12.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 August 2015
(2015/C 264/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1055




JPY


Japanese yen


137,99




DKK


Danish krone


7,4623




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70880




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5853




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0859




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0835




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,026




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,25




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1973




RON


Romanian leu


4,4151




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0596




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5092




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4454




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5743




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6866




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5465




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,40




ZAR


South African rand


14,0630




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9923




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5415




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 073,49




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3927




PHP


Philippine peso


50,925




RUB


Russian rouble


70,8091




THB


Thai baht


39,013




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8366




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9843




INR


Indian rupee


70,9786






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-441/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2015 — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen
Date: 2015-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, calcium, chemical salt, common customs tariff, pharmaceutical product, specification of tariff heading, starch








C_2015398EN.01001401.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2015 — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen
(Case C-441/15)
(2015/C 398/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Madaus GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that a raw material with the designation ‘DESTAB Calcium Carbonate 90SE Ultra 250’, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, modified starch, and with a starch content — determined in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 118/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the arrangements for imports of certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products — of less than 5 %, is to be classified under subheading 3824 9097 990?


(1)  (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).
Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-20/15)
Date: 2015-08-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, aerosol, chemical product, consumer information, inflammable product, infringement of EU law, labelling, national implementing measure








C_2015410EN.01000501.xml










10.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/5





Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-20/15)
(2015/C 410/04)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, as referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-21/15)
Date: 2015-08-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, engine, infringement of EU law, market approval, motor vehicle, national implementing measure, reduction of gas emissions, technical regulations








C_2015410EN.01000601.xml










10.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/6





Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-21/15)
(2015/C 410/05)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case T-475/15: Action brought on 12 August 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIm — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)
Date: 2015-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01003501.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/35





Action brought on 12 August 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIm — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)
(Case T-475/15)
(2015/C 328/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LR’ — Community trade mark No 11 047 578

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1143/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partly annul the contested decision as far as the Board of Appeal rejects under point 2 the Plaintiff’s request for proof of use of the Intervener’s earlier trademarks as belated;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 57(2), (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.