do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015338EN.01000401.xml










13.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 October 2015
(2015/C 338/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1373




JPY


Japanese yen


136,61




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,74010




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3017




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0928




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1580




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,108




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,86




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2246




RON


Romanian leu


4,4130




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3177




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5429




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4702




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8141




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6905




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5897




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,28




ZAR


South African rand


15,0949




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1917




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6265




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 285,16




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7170




PHP


Philippine peso


52,007




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4822




THB


Thai baht


40,204




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2818




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6802




INR


Indian rupee


73,6430






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-218/14: Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Mabrouk v Council
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Tunisia, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015398EN.01007701.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/77





Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Mabrouk v Council
(Case T-218/14) (1)

(2015/C 398/89)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Decision No 2/2015 of the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods of 13 October 2015 as regards invitation to the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods [2015/2465]
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: European Free Trade Association, European Union, Joint Committee
Subjects: Serbia, accession to an agreement, administrative formalities, agreement (EU), carriage of goods, simplification of formalities, trade cooperation








L_2015344EN.01000501.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 344/5








            DECISION No 2/2015 OF THE EU-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE SIMPLIFICATION OF FORMALITIES IN TRADE IN GOODS
         
of 13 October 2015
         
as regards invitation to the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods [2015/2465]


THE EU-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods (1) (‘the Convention’), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The exchange of goods with the Republic of Serbia would be facilitated by a simplification of formalities which affect the trade in goods between the Republic of Serbia and the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Turkey.












(2)


With a view to achieving such facilitation, it is appropriate to invite the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In accordance with Article 11a of the Convention, the Republic of Serbia shall be invited to accede to the Convention as from 1 December 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done in Ankara, 13 October 2015.


For the EU-EFTA Joint Committee


Acting Undersecretary

Cemal DERELİ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 134, 22.5.1987, p. 2.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7768 — Exor/PartnerRe) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2015338EN.01000101.xml










13.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7768 — Exor/PartnerRe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 338/01)
On 7 October 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 the 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 32015M7768. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-403/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Intrasoft International v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system — Conflict of interests — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia — Implicit rejection of the complaint against the rejection of the bid)
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Serbia, award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract, technical cooperation








C_2015398EN.01003201.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/32





Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Intrasoft International v Commission
(Case T-403/12) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system - Conflict of interests - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia - Implicit rejection of the complaint against the rejection of the bid))
(2015/C 398/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 10 August 2012, acting through the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia, stating that the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS, entitled ‘Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs’ (OJ 2011/S 160-262712), could not be awarded to the consortium of which Intrasoft International SA was a part, and secondly, an application for the annulment of the alleged implicit decision rejecting the complaint made by the applicant against the letter of the 10 August 2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision rejecting the tender of the consortium of which Intrasoft International SA was part, contained in the letter of 10 August 2012 drafted by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia as the European Commission’s subdelegated contracting authority and relating to the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS, entitled ‘Technical assistance to the Customs Administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system’;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
Case T-131/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Teughels v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015398EN.01004501.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/45





Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Teughels v Commission
(Case T-131/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations))
(2015/C 398/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Catherine Teughels (Eppegem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel and B. Braun, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Full Court) in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:196), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11).










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Catherine Teughels before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-117/11.










3.


Orders Ms Teughels to bear her own costs on appeal and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on appeal, and orders the Commission to bear its own costs associated with the cross-appeal.










4.


Orders Ms Teughels and the Commission each to bear their own costs at first instance.






(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
Case C-533/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, contract of carriage, damages, law of obligations, mutual recognition principle, traveller








C_2016048EN.01000803.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj
(Case C-533/15)
(2016/C 048/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Feliks Frisman

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] and brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passenger concerned?










2.


Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
When passengers are transported on one of several connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even if the flight connection has been carried out by different air carriers and the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated a different leg of the journey, on which a significant delay occurred?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7807 — Sun Capital/Finlays Horticulture) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, floriculture, food industry, holding company, horticulture, investment company, market gardening, merger control, sustainable agriculture








C_2015338EN.01000901.xml










13.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7807 — Sun Capital/Finlays Horticulture)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(2015/C 338/06)






1.


On 5 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sun Capital Partners VI, LP, ultimately controlled by Sun Capital Partners, Inc. (‘Sun Capital’, United States), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Finlays Horticulture Investments Limited and Finlays Horticulture Holdings Limited (together ‘Finlays Horticulture’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Sun Capital: private equity investment through leveraged buyouts, equity, debt, and other tools in a variety of industries worldwide,
—   for Finlays Horticulture: the growing, processing, marketing and distribution of sustainably produced cut flowers, premium and prepared vegetables and fresh herbs.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7807 — Sun Capital/Finlays Horticulture 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 C-536/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), Other party: European Directory Assistance NV
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, equal treatment, establishment, telecommunications








C_2016027EN.01000701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), Other party: European Directory Assistance NV
(Case C-536/15)
(2016/C 027/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Other party: European Directory Assistance NV

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that requests should be understood to include a request from a company established in another Member State, which requests information for the purposes of the provision of publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories which are provided in that Member State and/or in other Member States?










2)


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: may a provider who makes telephone numbers available, and who is obliged under national legislation to request a subscriber’s consent prior to inclusion in standard telephone directories and standard directory enquiry services, differentiate in the request for consent on the basis of the non-discrimination principle according to the Member State in which the company requesting the information as referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC provides the telephone directory and directory enquiry service?






(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).
Case T-104/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji (Appeal — Cross appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Measure not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectation — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015398EN.01004401.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/44





Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji
(Case T-104/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Measure not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Equal treatment))
(2015/C 398/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Gattinara and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and M. de Abreu Caldas, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013, Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:195), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013 in Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11);










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Mr. Marco Verile and Ms Anduela Gjergji before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-130/11;










3.


Orders Mr. Verile, Ms. Gjergji and the European Commission each to pay their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Decision No 3/2015 of the EU-EFTA Joint Committee on common transit of 13 October 2015 as regards invitation to the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure [2015/2466]
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: EFTA Member States, European Union, Joint Committee
Subjects: Serbia, accession to an agreement, customs transit, trade agreement (EU)








L_2015344EN.01000601.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 344/6








            DECISION No 3/2015 OF THE EU-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMON TRANSIT
         
of 13 October 2015
         
as regards invitation to the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure [2015/2466]


THE EU-EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1) (‘the Convention’), and in particular Article 15(3)(e) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The promotion of trade with the Republic of Serbia would be facilitated by a common transit procedure for goods transported between the Republic of Serbia and the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Turkey.












(2)


With a view to achieving such a procedure, it is appropriate to invite the Republic of Serbia to accede to the Convention,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In accordance with Article 15a of the Convention, the Republic of Serbia shall be invited to accede to the Convention as from 1 December 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done in Ankara, 13 October 2015.


For the EU-EFTA Joint Committee


Acting Undersecretary

Cemal DERELİ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 226, 13.8.1987, p. 2.
Case T-517/14: Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Pelikan v OHIM — RMP (be.bag)
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015398EN.01007702.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/77





Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Pelikan v OHIM — RMP (be.bag)
(Case T-517/14) (1)

(2015/C 398/90)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.