do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016192EN.01000201.xml










31.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 May 2016
(2016/C 192/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1139 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,85 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,76125 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2830 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1058 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3025 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,81 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3940 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5033 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2932 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5504 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4524 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6537 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6624 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5384 




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,59 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5673 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3314 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4848 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 199,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5865 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,053 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,3946 




THB


Thai baht


39,800 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0148 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5769 




INR


Indian rupee


74,7865 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-454/14: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark STONE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002201.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/22





Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE)
(Case T-454/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark STONE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by: E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1599/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign STONE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8045 — Boskalis/Volker Wessels Offshore Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, civil engineering, economic concentration, hiring, maritime transport, merger control, urban infrastructure, vehicle rental








C_2016192EN.01000501.xml










31.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8045 — Boskalis/Volker Wessels Offshore Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 192/05)






1.


On 20 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Royal Boskalis Westminster NV (‘Boskalis’, Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertakings Stemat Holding BV (‘Stemat’, Netherlands), Volker Stevin International Holding BV (‘VSI’, Netherlands) and VBMS Holding BV (‘VBMS’, Netherlands) (together ‘Volker Wessels Offshore business’), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Boskalis: dredging, offshore installation, offshore transport, towage and salvage as well as inland infrastructure. Boskalis' services are primarily offered to the oil and gas sector, the wind energy sector, ports and to projects related to land reclamation and coastal protection.
—   For Volker Wessels Offshore business: rental and lease of commodity vessels, installation, maintenance and replacement services of subsea power cables and multipurpose cables, and offshore construction services. These services are predominantly provided to the offshore wind energy sector.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8045 — Boskalis/Volker Wessels Offshore Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-450/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 31 May 2016 — Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006, the eTEN Programme on trans-European telecommunications networks and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 — 2913) — Audit report finding expenses incurred ineligible — Claim for reimbursement of the grants paid — Fixed compensation — Action for annulment — Counter claim)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, competitiveness, damages, innovation, reimbursement of aid, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2016326EN.01000301.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/3





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 31 May 2016 — Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission
(Case C-450/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006, the eTEN Programme on trans-European telecommunications networks and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 — 2913) - Audit report finding expenses incurred ineligible - Claim for reimbursement of the grants paid - Fixed compensation - Action for annulment - Counter claim))
(2016/C 326/03)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (represented by: S. Skliris, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and A. Marcoulli, Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Loinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 395, 16.11.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7902 — Marriott International/Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, franchising, hotel industry, intellectual property, merger control, real estate business








C_2016192EN.01000401.xml










31.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7902 — Marriott International/Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 192/04)






1.


On 23 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Marriott International, Inc. (‘Marriott’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (‘Starwood’, United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Marriott: essentially manager and franchisor of hotels and timeshare properties in 85 countries and territories,
—   for Starwood: essentially manager and franchisor of hotels, resorts worldwide, with nearly 1 300 properties in approximately 100 countries.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7902 — Marriott International/Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7893 — Plastic Omnium/Faurecia Automotive Exterior Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2016192EN.01000301.xml










31.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7893 — Plastic Omnium/Faurecia Automotive Exterior Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 192/03)






1.


On 23 May 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Compagnie Plastic Omnium SA (‘Plastic Omnium’, France) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the automotive exterior business of Faurecia SA (‘the Target’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Plastic Omnium is a global company specialised in manufacturing automotive equipment and waste management and environment,










—


the Target consists of the bulk of the automotive exterior business of Faurecia SA, and is engaged in the manufacturing and supply of painted plastic automotive exterior components and the assembly of Front End Modules for light vehicles to car manufacturers. The Target also has a marginal production of Engine Cooling Systems.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7893 — Plastic Omnium/Faurecia Automotive Exterior Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-301/15: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, marketing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002901.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/29





Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.)
(Case T-301/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2015 (Case R 3114/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Du bist, was du erlebst. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jochen Schweizer GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case C-309/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P. and Others
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial intervention, financial solvency, investment company, national implementing measure, national law








C_2016335EN.01003301.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P. and Others
(Case C-309/16)
(2016/C 335/44)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P., Corbin Capital Partners, Redwood Drawdown Master Fund, L.P., Redwood Opportunity Master Fund Ltd, Redwood Capital Management LLC, Pontus Holdings Ltd, RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl

Defendant: FMA Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 2014/59/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, in particular Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(2) thereof, applicable ratione temporis and ratione materiae to the case of a resolution company like that in the main proceedings whose resolution had already been started, through mechanisms provided for at national level, before the expiry of the period for transposition of the directive and continues to be carried out in the period after the expiry of the period for transposition on the basis of the national rules transposing the abovementioned directive?










2.


Does Directive 2014/59/EU confer on creditors of such a resolution company which have applied to the resolution authority, requesting it to ‘examine and prohibit’ the conclusion with other creditors of certain legal transactions planned or already entered into by the resolution company (for example a court arrangement with creditors), rights for whose protection they have access to an administrative and judicial procedure?






(1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.
Case T-278/16: Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, aid recipient, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, multinational enterprise, principle of legal certainty, profit








C_2016279EN.01003402.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/34





Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission
(Case T-278/16)
(2016/C 279/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Atlas Copco Airpower (Antwerp, Belgium) and Atlas Copco AB (Nacka, Sweden) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Haelterman and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of 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 and Article 107 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of 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.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8001 — Pillarstone/Sirti) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, economic concentration, information service, merger control








C_2016192EN.01000101.xml










31.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8001 — Pillarstone/Sirti)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 192/01)
On 25 May 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 32016M8001. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-84/15: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Laboratorios Thea v EUIPO — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016270EN.01006703.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/67





Order of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Laboratorios Thea v EUIPO — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
(Case T-84/15) (1)

(2016/C 270/74)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.