do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016131EN.01000301.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 April 2016
(2016/C 131/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1298 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4429 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79388 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1760 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0887 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3113 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,036 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,73 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2869 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4700 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2259 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4768 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4466 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7637 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6337 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5265 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,14 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6342 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3172 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4660 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 867,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3852 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,065 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,2708 




THB


Thai baht


39,611 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9690 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,8238 




INR


Indian rupee


75,2490 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — ‘Floor’ clause — Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation — Collective proceedings — Action for an injunction — Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interest, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2016211EN.01001101.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)
(Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation - Collective proceedings - Action for an injunction - Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter))
(2016/C 211/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Jorge Sales Sinués (C-381/14), Youssouf Drame Ba (C-385/14)

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-381/14), Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a court, before which an individual action has been brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a contractual term binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair, automatically to suspend such an action pending a final judgment concerning an ongoing collective action brought by a consumer association on the basis of Article 7(2) of Directive 93/13 seeking to prevent the continued use, in contracts of the same type, of terms similar to those at issue in that individual action, without the relevance of such a suspension from the point of view of the protection of the consumer who brought the individual action before the court being able to be taken into consideration and without that consumer being able to decide to dissociate himself from the collective action.


(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Case T-154/16: Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, electrical energy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016200EN.01002901.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/29





Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)
(Case T-154/16)
(2016/C 200/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GRID applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APlan’ — Application No 13 374 079

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1819/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-158/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, cost of living, damages, equal treatment, pension scheme, retired person, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016191EN.01004401.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/44





Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

(Case T-158/16 P)
(2016/C 191/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark), Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC;




giving judgment itself,






—


annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-148/16 P, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission.
Case C-100/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Insufficient and incomplete examination — Obligation to state reasons — Selectivity)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, hire purchase








C_2016211EN.01001901.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/19






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-100/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Insufficient and incomplete examination - Obligation to state reasons - Selectivity))
(2016/C 211/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case C-207/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, crime, data protection, fundamental rights, imprisonment, offence, personal data, telecommunications industry








C_2016251EN.01000701.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal
(Case C-207/16)
(2016/C 251/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta

Party to the main proceedings

Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred







1.


Can the sufficient seriousness of offences, as a criterion which justifies interference with the fundamental rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (1) be determined taking into account only the sentence which may be imposed in respect of the offence investigated, or is it also necessary to identify in the criminal conduct particular levels of harm to individual and/or collective legally-protected interests?










2.


If it were in accordance with the constitutional principles of the European Union, used by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 April 2014 [Joined Cases C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) and C-594/12 (Seitlinger and Others)] as standards for the strict review of the Directive, (2) to determine the seriousness of the offence solely on the basis of the sentence which may be imposed, what should the minimum threshold be? Would it be compatible with a general provision setting a minimum of three years’ imprisonment?






(1)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, p. 391).

(2)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).
Case T-20/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI — Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2016191EN.01002701.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/27





Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)
(Case T-20/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI - Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 191/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milan, Italy) (represented by F. Cecchi, P. Pozzi and F. Ghisletti Giovanni, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2265/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG and Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/478 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ L 85, 1.4.2016)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2016098EN.01000603.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 98/6







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/478 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 85 of 1 April 2016
)


On page 51, the Annex (concerning Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333), Part A, entry No 18, column ‘Name’: the name ‘BADI, Salahdin’ is deleted;
on Page 52, the Annex (concerning Annex IV to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333), Part A, entry No 23, column ‘Name’: the name ‘BADI, Salahdin’ is deleted.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Philippines, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2016131EN.01000501.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/5





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2016/C 131/06)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 04/039, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof


The People’s Republic of China
Philippines
Taiwan


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 of 4 January 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 5, 7.1.2012, p. 1), as extended to imports consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines or not by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 205/2013 (OJ L 68, 12.3.2013, p. 1).


8.1.2017






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/466 of 31 March 2016 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ L 85, 1.4.2016)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2016098EN.01000602.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 98/6







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/466 of 31 March 2016 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 85 of 1 April 2016
)


On page 5, Annex (concerning Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44), Part A, column ‘Name’, entry No 18: the name ‘BADI, Salahdin’ is deleted.
Special Report No 3/2016 — ‘Combatting eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed’
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Baltic States, eutrophication, pollution from agricultural sources, pollution from land-based sources, prevention of pollution, wastewater, water pollutant, water protection








C_2016131EN.01000401.xml










14.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/4





Special Report No 3/2016
‘Combatting eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed’
(2016/C 131/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 3/2016 ‘Combatting eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Case C-555/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Physiotherapy — Osteopathy
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, paramedical profession, tax exemption, tax relief, therapeutics








C_2016279EN.01000801.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/8





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-555/15) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Physiotherapy - Osteopathy)
(2016/C 279/12)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the order

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a physiotherapist who, in the context of his professional health activity, uses, either indistinctly or complementarily, both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy must be exempt from value added tax not only with regard to the former therapies, but also with regard to the latter, where the exclusion of the therapies characteristic of osteopathy from the exercise of paramedical professions for the purposes of an exemption from value added tax exceeds the scope of the discretion granted to Member States by that provision.


(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016
Case C-522/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax — Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information)
Date: 2016-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, banking secrecy, branch, capital transfer tax, credit institution, death, national law, right of establishment, tax authorities








C_2016211EN.01001402.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/14






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten
(Case C-522/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax - Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information))
(2016/C 211/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions having their head office in that Member State to notify the national authorities of assets held or managed at their dependent branches established in another Member State in the event of the death of the owner of those assets who is resident in the first Member State, in the case where there is no similar notification obligation in that second Member State and credit institutions there are subject to banking secrecy breach of which constitutes a criminal offence.


(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.