do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016373EN.01000201.xml










12.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 October 2016
(2016/C 373/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1079 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4412 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90233 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7318 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0938 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0395 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2712 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4885 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4139 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4679 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4653 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5977 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5657 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5277 




KRW


South Korean won


1 245,11 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8020 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4440 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5095 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 451,84 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6354 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,817 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,1597 




THB


Thai baht


39,209 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5634 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9088 




INR


Indian rupee


73,7760 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-242/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 — Land Hessen v Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, State aid, control of State aid, credit guarantee, sawmill








C_2016462EN.01000502.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/5





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 — Land Hessen v Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission
(Case C-242/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees))
(2016/C 462/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Land Hessen to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Case T-722/16: Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, chemical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016462EN.01003101.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/31





Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)
(Case T-722/16)
(2016/C 462/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘zerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2371/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 612 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases C-511/15 and C-512/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni sud u Bjelovaru — Croatia) — Renata Horžić (C-511/15), Siniša Pušić (C-512/15) v Privredna banka Zagreb d.d., Božo Prka (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agreements concerning credit for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreement for immovable property — Variable interest rates — Obligations on the creditor — National legislation applicable to agreements existing at the date on which that legislation comes into force — Inapplicability of Directive 2008/48)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, application of the law, consumer credit, consumer protection, contract








C_2016475EN.01000802.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/8





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni sud u Bjelovaru — Croatia) — Renata Horžić (C-511/15), Siniša Pušić (C-512/15) v Privredna banka Zagreb d.d., Božo Prka
(Joined Cases C-511/15 and C-512/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agreements concerning credit for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreement for immovable property - Variable interest rates - Obligations on the creditor - National legislation applicable to agreements existing at the date on which that legislation comes into force - Inapplicability of Directive 2008/48))
(2016/C 475/11)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Prekršajni sud u Bjelovaru

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Renata Horžić (C-511/15), Siniša Pušić (C-512/15)

Defendants: Privredna banka Zagreb d.d., Božo Prka

Operative part of the order

Articles 23 and 30(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which require the creditor, on pain of criminal penalties, to comply with obligations concerning variable interest rates in respect of credit agreements existing at the date on which those provisions came into force, since those credit agreements fall outside the material scope of that directive and, furthermore, those obligations do not constitute an implementation of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-543/15: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, chemical product, establishment, market approval, supplier








C_2016454EN.01002501.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/25






Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
(Case T-543/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C. Buchanan, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by P. Oliver, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea GmbH, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.










3.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Case C-523/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Ma.t.i. Sud S.p.a. v Centostazioni S.p.a.
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: documentation, fine, free competition, invitation to tender








C_2017022EN.01000402.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Ma.t.i. Sud S.p.a. v Centostazioni S.p.a.
(Case C-523/16)
(2017/C 022/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ma.t.i. Sud S.p.a.

Defendant: Centostazioni S.p.a.

Questions referred







1.


Although the Member States have the ability to require payment for soccorso istruttorio, a procedure whereby the tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in its tendering documentation, which has the effect of remedying any irregularity, is Article 38(2a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, in the version in force at the time of the tendering procedure in question …, which makes provision for the payment of a ‘pecuniary penalty’, in so far as that penalty must be fixed by the contracting authority (‘not less than 0.1 % and not more than 1 % of the value of the contract and in any event not more than EUR 50 000, the payment of which shall be guaranteed by the provisional security’), contrary to EU law in view of the excessively high amount and the predetermined nature of that penalty, which cannot be adjusted according to the specific situation to be regulated or the seriousness of the irregularity to be remedied?










2.


Is Article 38(2a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 (in the version in force at the time indicated above) contrary to EU law, in that that requirement to pay for soccorso istruttorio may be regarded as contrary to the principle of opening up the market to competition as widely as possible, an aim which the soccorso istruttorio mechanism is intended to achieve, the facility which the contracting authority is required to offer in that regard therefore being a logical consequence of the duties imposed on that authority by law in the light of the public interest in achieving that aim?
Case C-92/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/75/EC — Systems of chartering and pricing in inland waterway transport — Scope — Article 1(b) — ‘Carrier’ — Article 2 — Freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carrier, chartering, contract of carriage, inland waterway transport, vessel








C_2016462EN.01000301.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/3





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV
(Case C-92/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/75/EC - Systems of chartering and pricing in inland waterway transport - Scope - Article 1(b) - ‘Carrier’ - Article 2 - Freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices))
(2016/C 462/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sven Mathys

Respondent: De Grave Antverpia NV

Operative part of the judgment

In the context of inland waterway transport activities, Article 1(b) of Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community, in so far as it defines a ‘carrier’ as an owner or an operator of one or more inland waterway vessels, and Article 2 of that directive, in so far as it states that, in that field, contracts are to be freely concluded between the parties concerned, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, that would enable a person who does not correspond to that definition to conclude a contract of carriage as a carrier.


(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State — State aid — Germany (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) — Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification — State aid SA.43014 16/C (ex 16/N) — Aid for REHAU AG + Co (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, State aid, building services, control of State aid, plastics industry








C_2016373EN.01001301.xml










12.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/13





DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE
State aid — Germany
(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification
State aid SA.43014 16/C (ex 16/N) — Aid for REHAU AG + Co
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 373/05)
The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 13 June 2016 in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Germany has withdrawn its notification on 24 June 2016 and will not pursue this aid project further.
Case T-669/15: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, chemical product, establishment, market approval, supplier








C_2016454EN.01002701.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/27






Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
(Case T-669/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, acting as Agents, and by P. Oliver)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 16 July 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company BASF SE, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.










3.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case C-185/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(3) — Definition of ‘counterclaim’ — Claim based on unjust enrichment — Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside — Temporal application)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of powers, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2016462EN.01000401.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH
(Case C-185/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(3) - Definition of ‘counterclaim’ - Claim based on unjust enrichment - Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside - Temporal application))
(2016/C 462/05)
Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec

Defendant: F&S Leasing GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.


(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
Case T-41/16: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — Application for registration of a protected designation of origin ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Commission letters concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition proceedings relating to the registration procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, cheese, designation of origin, product designation








C_2017014EN.01003402.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/34






Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
(Case T-41/16) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Application for registration of a protected designation of origin ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Commission letters concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition proceedings relating to the registration procedure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 014/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders and Producers Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia), Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt)) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, P. Aalto and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of two letters from the European Commission of 18 November 2015 (Ref.Ares (2015) 5171539) and of 15 January 2016 (Ref.Ares (2016) 220922) concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition procedure relating to the procedure for registering the cheese called ‘Halloumi/Hellim’ as a protected designation of origin

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Cyprus.










3.


Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry, Animal Breeders and Producers Association, Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd, Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association and Mrs Fatma Garanti shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.










4.


Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry, Animal Breeders and Producers Association, Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd, Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association, Mrs Fatma Garanti, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Cyprus shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  
            OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.