do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015393EN.01000201.xml










26.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 November 2015
(2015/C 393/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0586




JPY


Japanese yen


129,94




DKK


Danish krone


7,4606




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70175




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2717




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0820




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1810




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,11




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2603




RON


Romanian leu


4,4414




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0472




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4601




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4108




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2047




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6160




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4888




KRW


South Korean won


1 211,88




ZAR


South African rand


14,9158




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,7611




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6335




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 490,93




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4619




PHP


Philippine peso


49,834




RUB


Russian rouble


69,7339




THB


Thai baht


37,809




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9890




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5204




INR


Indian rupee


70,1855






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases T-159/13 and T-372/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — HK Intertrade v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Admissibility — Right to be heard — Obligation to notify — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016027EN.01003002.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/30





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — HK Intertrade v Council
(Joined Cases T-159/13 and T-372/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Obligation to notify - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Manifest error of assessment))
(2016/C 027/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in Case T 159/13, for annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), and, in Case T 372/14, for annulment of the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014 concerning the maintenance of the restrictive measures adopted in respect of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders HK Intertrade Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case T-181/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Nordschleife — Earlier Community word mark Management by Nordschleife — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, professional sport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004401.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/44





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)
(Case T-181/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Nordschleife - Earlier Community word mark Management by Nordschleife - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2014 (Case R 163/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lutz Biedermann and Nürburgring GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nürburgring GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case T-390/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR) (Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR — Absolute ground for refusal — Devoid of any distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004602.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/46





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR)
(Case T-390/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR - Absolute ground for refusal - Devoid of any distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 March 2014 (Case R 1511/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the ‘3D position mark’ KJ Kangoo Jumps XR as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Établissement Amra to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case T-50/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TURBO DRILL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, construction equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004201.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/42





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)
(Case T-50/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TURBO DRILL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1254/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TURBO DRILL as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Demp BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Case C-166/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — National legislation making an action for damages subject to a precondition that the procedure be declared unlawful — Limitation period which starts to run irrespective of the applicant’s knowledge of the unlawfulness)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, damages, invitation to tender, primacy of EU law








C_2016038EN.01000401.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH
(Case C-166/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - National legislation making an action for damages subject to a precondition that the procedure be declared unlawful - Limitation period which starts to run irrespective of the applicant’s knowledge of the unlawfulness))
(2016/C 038/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Intervening parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft, Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger, Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, precludes national legislation which makes bringing an action for damages in respect of the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful because of the lack of prior publication of a contract notice, where the action for a declaration of unlawfulness is subject to a six-month limitation period which starts to run on the day after the date of the award of the public contract in question, irrespective of whether or not the applicant in that action was in a position to know of the unlawfulness affecting the decision of the awarding authority.


(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7691 — Apollo/OMG) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, electricity storage device, investment company, magnetic medium, merger control, optical medium








C_2015393EN.01000101.xml










26.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7691 — Apollo/OMG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 393/01)
On 24 September 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 32015M7691. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-465/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — New aid)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Catalonia, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, high-definition television, peripheral region, services of general interest








C_2016027EN.01003801.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/38





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission
(Case T-465/13) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))
(2016/C 027/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, then J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Reverter Baquer and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, and finally J. Buendía Sierra, M. Reverter Baquer and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case T-262/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Bionecs v OHIM — Fidia farmaceutici (BIONECS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIONECS — Earlier international word mark BIONECT — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01004402.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/44





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Bionecs v OHIM — Fidia farmaceutici (BIONECS)
(Case T-262/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIONECS - Earlier international word mark BIONECT - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bionecs GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1179/2013/1) concerning opposition proceedings between Fidia Farmaceutici SpA and Bionecs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bionecs GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case T-461/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Spain v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Concept of undertaking — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Distortion of competition — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Duty of diligence — Reasonable period — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Subsidiarity — Right to information)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, equal treatment, high-definition television, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, regions of Spain, restriction on competition, right to information, services of general interest








C_2016027EN.01003502.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/35





Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-461/13) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Concept of undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Duty of diligence - Reasonable period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Subsidiarity - Right to information))
(2016/C 027/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs incurred in the main proceedings and those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case T-683/15: Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, dairy industry, interest, milk, quality control of agricultural products, reimbursement of aid








C_2016048EN.01008101.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/81





Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission
(Case T-683/15)
(2016/C 048/89)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the Federal Republic of Germany granted State aid unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land of Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria, which is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market;










—


annul Articles 2 to 4 of the contested decision in so far as they order recovery of the aid with interest in respect of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

Within the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the alleged aid from the Land budget was not covered by the opening decision.










2.


Second plea in law: No State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
The applicant asserts that the dairies in connection with the funding of the milk quality tests would not receive State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they were not given any selective advantage.










3.


Third plea in law (in the alternative): No infringement of the notification requirement
The applicant submits that the measures must be regarded as ‘existing aid’. The recovery therefore infringes Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.










4.


Fourth plea in law (in the alternative): An error of law was made in dismissing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU










5.


Fifth plea in law (in the alternative): The order for recovery of the aid infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).