do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016031EN.01000401.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 January 2016
(2016/C 31/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0888




JPY


Japanese yen


128,91




DKK


Danish krone


7,4625




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75965




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2591




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1068




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4508




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,85




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4710




RON


Romanian leu


4,5388




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2560




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5461




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5331




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4861




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6739




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5542




KRW


South Korean won


1 308,94




ZAR


South African rand


17,7803




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1621




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6685




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 090,93




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6203




PHP


Philippine peso


52,162




RUB


Russian rouble


85,2106




THB


Thai baht


38,963




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3963




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0040




INR


Indian rupee


74,0928






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-50/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural real estate, equal treatment, inheritance, jurisdiction, law of succession, professional qualifications, right of establishment








C_2016326EN.01000802.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others
(Case C-50/16)
(2016/C 326/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring Court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

Parties to the main proceedings

Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others
By order of 2 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland).
Case C-398/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 4 — Secondary treatment or equivalent — Annex I, Sections B and D)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Alentejo, Algarve, Central Portugal, Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, Northern Portugal, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, wastewater, water treatment








C_2016106EN.01000602.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-398/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 4 - Secondary treatment or equivalent - Annex I, Sections B and D))
(2016/C 106/07)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Reis Silva and J. Brito e Silva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not ensuring that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants were subject to an adequate level of treatment, meeting the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in the agglomerations of Alvalade, Odemira, Pereira do Campo, Vila Verde (PTAGL 420), Mação, Pontével, Castro Daire, Arraiolos, Ferreira do Alentejo, Vidigueira, Alcácer do Sal, Amareleja, Monchique, Montemor-o-Novo, Grândola, Estremoz, Maceira, Portel, Viana do Alentejo, Cinfães, Ponte de Reguengo, Canas de Senhorim, Repeses, Vila Viçosa, Santa Comba Dão, Tolosa, Loriga, Cercal, Vale de Santarém, Castro Verde, Almodôvar, Amares/Ferreiras, Mogadouro, Melides, Vila Verde (PTAGL 421), Serpa, Vendas Novas, Vila de Prado, Nelas, Vila Nova de São Bento, Santiago do Cacém, Alter do Chão, Tábua and Mangualde, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that directive;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
Case T-570/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Abnormally low tender — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, indemnification, innovation, invitation to tender, services contract, sustainable agriculture








C_2016098EN.01003101.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/31





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
(Case T-570/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Abnormally low tender - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 098/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Capelletti and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of alleged irregularities on the part of the Commission in the tender procedure ‘Establishing a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) “Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability”’ (AGRI-2012-EIP-01).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Agriconsulting Europe SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/162 of 28 January 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mortadella di Prato (PGI))
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Tuscany, designation of origin, labelling, meat product, product designation








L_2016032EN.01002801.xml










9.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 32/28








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/162
of 28 January 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mortadella di Prato (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Mortadella di Prato’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Mortadella di Prato’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Mortadella di Prato’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 January 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 317, 25.9.2015, p. 9.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-667/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Verification of small parcels — Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt — Extrapolation of on-site inspection results)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, plot, reimbursement of aid








C_2016098EN.01004101.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/41





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
(Case T-667/14) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Verification of small parcels - Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt - Extrapolation of on-site inspection results))
(2016/C 098/53)
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Applicant: The Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), insofar as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), insofar as it excludes from European Union financing, so far as concerns the Republic of Slovenia, the sum of EUR 85 780,08 for the financial year 2010, of EUR 115 956,46 for the financial year 2011 and of EUR 131 269,23 for the financial year 2012;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the application;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Republic of Slovenia;










4.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear one-tenth of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Corrigendum to Directive 2009/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles (OJ L 222, 25.8.2009)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: codification of EU law, lighting equipment, motor vehicle, signalling device, transport regulations, two-wheeled vehicle








L_2016021EN.01008801.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 21/88







Corrigendum to Directive 2009/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on two or three-wheel motor vehicles

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 222 of 25 August 2009
)


On page 66, Annex V, point 6.12.1:
for:







‘6.12.1.



Number: one Class IA (1).’





read:







‘6.12.1.



Number: two Class IA (1).’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7778 — Vattenfall/ENGIE/GASAG) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, gas industry, merger control








C_2016031EN.01000102.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7778 — Vattenfall/ENGIE/GASAG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 31/02)
On 8 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 the German 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 32015M7778. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-60/14: Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, gaming establishment, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2016136EN.01002201.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/22





Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-60/14) (1)

(2016/C 136/27)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7899 — Alimentation Couche Tard/Topaz Energy Group/Resource Property Investment Fund/Esso Ireland) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2016031EN.01000201.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7899 — Alimentation Couche Tard/Topaz Energy Group/Resource Property Investment Fund/Esso Ireland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 31/03)
On 25 January 2016, 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 32016M7899. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-51/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, medical device, specification of tariff heading, titanium








C_2016136EN.01001502.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
(Case C-51/16)
(2016/C 136/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Questions referred







1.


Should heading 9021 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that implant screws as described in 4 above, which are solely intended to be implanted in the human body for the treatment of fractures or the fixation of prostheses, may be classified thereunder?










2.


Is Regulation No 1212/2014 (1) valid?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1212/2014 of 11 November 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 3).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2016031EN.01000101.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 31/01)
On 21 January 2016, 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 32016M7887. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-640/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Sto v OHIM Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CRETEO — Earlier national word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character acquired through use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01003201.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/32





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Sto v OHIM Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)
(Case T-640/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CRETEO - Earlier national word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 098/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sto SE & Co. KGaA, formerly Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Lochner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 (Case R 905/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sto AG and Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sto SE & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
Case T-687/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark African SIMBA — Prior national figurative mark Simba — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01004201.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/42





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)
(Case T-687/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark African SIMBA - Prior national figurative mark Simba - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 098/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2014 (Case R 2098/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Novomatic AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.