do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016070EN.01000201.xml










24.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 February 2016
(2016/C 70/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1002




JPY


Japanese yen


123,12




DKK


Danish krone


7,4618




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77985




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3510




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0921




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4590




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,63




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3668




RON


Romanian leu


4,4648




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2298




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5202




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5116




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5480




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6452




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5484




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,46




ZAR


South African rand


16,6401




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1814




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6260




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 736,51




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6346




PHP


Philippine peso


52,397




RUB


Russian rouble


82,7990




THB


Thai baht


39,321




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3570




MXN


Mexican peso


19,8974




INR


Indian rupee


75,4059






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7886 — Postfinance/SIX Group/SIX Paynet) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2016070EN.01000101.xml










24.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7886 — Postfinance/SIX Group/SIX Paynet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 70/01)
On 18 February 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 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 32016M7886. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-111/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, consumer protection, food safety, foodstuff, health control, health risk, human nutrition








C_2016191EN.01000801.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others
(Case C-111/16)
(2016/C 191/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Criminal proceedings against:

Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga

Questions referred







1.


When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, even if in the Commission’s assessment in respect of certain food or feed there is no serious, evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment?










2.


Where the Commission notifies the Member State which had sought its assessment that its assessment is at odds with the Member State’s request — an assessment which in theory precludes the need to adopt emergency measures — and where, accordingly, the Commission does not adopt such emergency measures within the meaning of Article 34 Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) as requested by that Member State, is the Member State which made the request authorised, pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, to adopt interim emergency measures?










3.


May considerations relating to the precautionary principle which go beyond the parameters of serious and evident risk to human or animal health or the environment in the use of food or feed justify the adoption of interim emergency measures by a Member State within the meaning of Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003?










4.


Where it is clear and obvious that the European Commission has made the assessment that the substantive conditions for the adoption of emergency measures for food or feed are not met, which is later confirmed by an EFSA Scientific Opinion, and where that assessment was notified in writing to the Member State which made the request, may that Member State continue to maintain in force its existing interim emergency measures and/or extend the validity of such interim emergency measures, when the interim period for which they were put in place has expired?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
Case C-108/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, disclosure of information, legal process, residence, right to justice








C_2016156EN.01002902.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki
(Case C-108/16)
(2016/C 156/39)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Paweł Dworzecki

Questions referred







1.


Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1)







—



                              ‘in due time …was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
                           
and










—



                              ‘in due time … by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’
                           
autonomous concepts of EU law?














2.


If so:






– a.


how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and










– b.


does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:






—


according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person;










—


it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person;










—


it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial,








fall under one of those two autonomous concepts?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case F-33/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, interest, psychological harassment








C_2016118EN.01004301.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/43





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC
(Case F-33/15) (1)

(2016/C 118/49)
Language of the case: French
The single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.
Case T-816/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01003002.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/30





Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED)
(Case T-816/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED - Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Misuse of power - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 118/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/134/14 — Assistants (AST 3) in the field of parliamentary work
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: European Parliament, assistant, competition (EU)








CA2016070EN.01000101.xml










24.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 70/1





RESERVE LIST
OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/134/14
ASSISTANTS (AST 3) IN THE FIELD OF PARLIAMENTARY WORK
(2016/C 070 A/01)
 






BUSTOS


Virginia




CRISAN


Nadina Andreea




D’ALMEIDA


Irina




DAMIANIDOU


Dorothea




DEBNÁROVÁ


Ľubica




DELACOUR


Catherine




DIGREGORIO


Chiara




DITU


Simona




EVANGELISTA


Gladys




GAIDARJI


Aura




GONTSAROVA


Darja




GRAZIOTTI


Piergiorgio




GUINA


Adela




HERTZ-FARAGÓ


Hajnalka




IORI


Andrea




KOTSIS


Réka




KRASTEVA


Viktoriya




MARCOCCHIO


Cathy




MINKOVA


Maria




MONTOYA LOZANO


Andrés Antonio




NODARI


Mirko




NONIS


Ester




PASKEVICIUTE


Lina




PEDEN


Hilary




PIPPIDOU


Dimitra




REIMERS


Alexander René




RODIADIS


Antonios




SCHERER


Daphne




SZABO


Razvan Nicolae




VILLEGAS TERÁN


Maria Eugenia




The reserve list will be valid until 30 June 2019.
Case T-411/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a contour bottle without fluting — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01002601.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/26





Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting)
(Case T-411/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a contour bottle without fluting - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 118/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 540/2013-2), concerning proceedings for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.