do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015441EN.01000201.xml










31.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 December 2015
(2015/C 441/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0926




JPY


Japanese yen


131,66




DKK


Danish krone


7,4625




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73799




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1878




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0814




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6160




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,029




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,15




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2400




RON


Romanian leu


4,5296




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1837




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4990




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5171




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4685




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5959




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5449




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,79




ZAR


South African rand


16,8847




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0910




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6370




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 081,33




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6887




PHP


Philippine peso


51,281




RUB


Russian rouble


79,7540




THB


Thai baht


39,334




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2590




MXN


Mexican peso


18,8867




INR


Indian rupee


72,5350






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-762/15: Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, market-sharing agreement, mitigating circumstances, price agreement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2016098EN.01004701.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/47





Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission
(Case T-762/15)
(2016/C 098/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan), and Sony Electronics, Inc (San Diego, United States) (represented by: N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors, and R. Snelders, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, in so far as it relates to the applicants;










—


alternatively, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and in law in finding that the applicants engaged in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.






—


The evidence cited against the applicants is insufficient to support the finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.










—


The decision’s alternative finding according to which the applicants engaged in separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU by object is unproven and infringed the applicants’ rights of defence because it is made for the first time in the decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.






—


The decision errs in double-counting revenues that were passed on by the applicants to another addressee of the decision.










—


The decision errs by failing to acknowledge the applicants’ substantially more limited conduct as compared to certain other addressees of the decision and thus by failing to apply to the applicants a lower gravity multiplier and lower additional amount and/or a mitigating circumstances discount.










—


The decision errs in imposing a deterrence multiplier.
Case T-763/15: Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, mitigating circumstances, price agreement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2016098EN.01004801.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/48





Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission
(Case T-763/15)
(2016/C 098/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sony Optiarc, Inc (Atsugi, Japan), and Sony Optiarc America, Inc (San Jose, United States) (represented by: N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors, and R. Snelders, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, in so far as it relates to the applicants;










—


alternatively, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and in law in finding that the applicants engaged in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.






—


The evidence cited against the applicants is insufficient to support the finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.










—


The decision’s alternative finding according to which the applicants engaged in separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU by object is unproven and infringed the applicants’ rights of defence because it is made for the first time in the decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.






—


The decision errs in double-counting revenues that were passed on by the applicants to another addressee of the decision.










—


The decision errs by failing to acknowledge the applicants’ substantially more limited conduct as compared to certain other addressees of the decision and thus by failing to apply to the applicants a lower gravity multiplier and lower additional amount and/or a mitigating circumstances discount.
Case C-701/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 31 December 2015 — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, airport, award of contract








C_2016136EN.01000701.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 31 December 2015 — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA
(Case C-701/15)
(2016/C 136/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

Question referred

Does Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), which requires the application of the EU rules governing the award of public contracts to activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provision of airports to air carriers, as defined in the national case-law referred to in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 above, preclude national provisions, such as those set out in Articles 4 and 11 of Legislative Decree No 18/1999, which do not require a prior public selection procedure to be conducted for every allocation, including temporary allocations, of areas within airports for the purpose of such activities?


(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7814 — Engie/Soper/La Compagnie du Vent/La Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/CEOLCBH60/CEOLCHA51/CEOLAUX89) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy distribution, energy production, holding company, merger control








C_2015441EN.01000101.xml










31.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7814 — Engie/Soper/La Compagnie du Vent/La Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/CEOLCBH60/CEOLCHA51/CEOLAUX89)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 441/01)
On 22 December 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 French 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 32015M7814. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-700/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 31 December 2015 — LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d. v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2015-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, specification of tariff heading








C_2016111EN.01000602.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 31 December 2015 — LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d. v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-700/15)
(2016/C 111/08)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d.

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred







1.


May the provisions of Chapter 30 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a product, whose main component is an active ingredient (probiotic bacteria) contained in food supplements classified under tariff heading 2106 90 98 CN, is not to be classified in that chapter?










2.


For a product to be classified in Chapter 30 of the CN, is it sufficient that the manufacturer presents that product, which contains an active ingredient having beneficial effects on health in general which is often found in food supplements, as a medicinal product, and markets and sells it as such?










3.


In the light of the evolution of EU law regulating the market for medicinal products, must the concept of ‘clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics’ which, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is a condition for classification in Chapter 30, be interpreted as corresponding to the definition of medicinal product within the meaning of the provisions of EU law relating to medicinal products for human use?