do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016309EN.01000301.xml










25.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 August 2016
(2016/C 309/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1268 




JPY


Japanese yen


112,95 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4432 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85130 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4545 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0891 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2460 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,99 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3039 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4597 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3290 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4782 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4581 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7370 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5400 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5257 




KRW


South Korean won


1 264,96 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9380 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5013 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4920 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 969,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5537 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,396 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,0561 




THB


Thai baht


39,013 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6463 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8945 




INR


Indian rupee


75,6268 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-474/16: Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, Walloon region (Belgium), airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, reimbursement of aid, transport infrastructure








C_2016371EN.01002801.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/28





Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission
(Case T-474/16)
(2016/C 371/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (SOWEAR) (Namur, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded;










—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded,




and consequently,






—


annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair;










—


order the Commission 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 that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015.
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination and appointment of Hearing Officers
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: appointment of members








C_2016309EN.01000401.xml










25.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/4





Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination and appointment of Hearing Officers
(2016/C 309/05)
As of 1 January 2016, the EFTA Surveillance Authority appointed Ms Charlotte FORNØ and Mr Caspar EBRECHT, officials of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as Hearing Officers for the purposes of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 442/12/COL of 29 November 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (1).
Upon the taking up of these duties by Ms FORNØ and Mr EBRECHT on 1 January 2016, Ms Clémence PERRIN and Ms Auður STEINARSDÓTTIR terminated their functions as Hearing Officers as set out in EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 442/12/COL.


(1)  OJ L 190, 11.7.2013, p. 93.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8112 — Japan Tunnel Systems Corporation/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, industrial manufacturing, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2016309EN.01000101.xml










25.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8112 — Japan Tunnel Systems Corporation/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 309/01)
On 17 August 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 32016M8112. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8089 — Randstad/Ausy) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, employment service, merger control, new technology, software








C_2016309EN.01000102.xml










25.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8089 — Randstad/Ausy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 309/02)
On 16 August 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 32016M8089. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016309EN.01000201.xml










25.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 309/03)
On 18 August 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 32016M8138. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.