do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016422EN.01000101.xml










17.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 November 2016
(2016/C 422/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0702 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4422 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86110 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8328 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0738 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0720 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,036 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4433 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5198 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,5541 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4333 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4425 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3020 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5179 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5174 




KRW


South Korean won


1 258,36 




ZAR


South African rand


15,3397 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3620 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5195 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 416,66 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6554 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,830 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,6846 




THB


Thai baht


38,003 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6791 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9071 




INR


Indian rupee


72,8470 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-348/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Wiener Neustadt v Niederösterreichische Landesregierung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 2011/92/EU — Scope — Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ — No environmental impact assessment — Definitive authorisation — Legislative regularisation a posteriori of the lack of environmental impact assessment — Principle of cooperation — Article 4 TEU)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, industrial project, national law, private sector, public sector








C_2017014EN.01001301.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Wiener Neustadt v Niederösterreichische Landesregierung
(Case C-348/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2011/92/EU - Scope - Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ - No environmental impact assessment - Definitive authorisation - Legislative regularisation a posteriori of the lack of environmental impact assessment - Principle of cooperation - Article 4 TEU))
(2017/C 014/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

Defendant: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

Intervening party: .A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers a project subject to a legislative provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a project which has been the subject of a decision taken in breach of the obligation to assess its effects on the environment, in respect of which the time limit for an action for annulment has expired, must be regarded as lawfully authorised. EU law precludes such a legislative provision insofar as it provides that a prior environmental impact assessment must be deemed to have been carried out for such a project.


(1)  
            OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8230 — Nordea Bank/DNB/Relacom Management) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, economic concentration, mechanical engineering, merger control, provision of services








C_2016422EN.01000901.xml










17.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8230 — Nordea Bank/DNB/Relacom Management)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 422/08)






1.


On 8 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Nordea Bank AB (publ) (‘Nordea’, Sweden) and DNB Bank ASA, filial Sverige (‘DNB’, Sweden) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Relacom Management AB (‘Relacom’, Sweden) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Nordea: Swedish based bank listed on the Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen stock exchanges offering a wide range of financial services,
—   for DNB: part of DNB ASA Group, which is a Norwegian based financial group listed on the Oslo stock exchange offering a wide range of financial services,
—   for Relacom: Swedish based technology services provider to the telecommunications, power and machine-to-machine markets.










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.8230 — Nordea Bank/DNB/Relacom Management, 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-216/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Scope — Concept of ‘worker’ — Concept of ‘economic activities’ — Nursing staff who do not have a contract of employment assigned to a health care institution by a not-for-profit association)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, labour mobility, non-profit organisation, nursing staff, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017014EN.01000702.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/7






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH
(Case C-216/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Scope - Concept of ‘worker’ - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Nursing staff who do not have a contract of employment assigned to a health care institution by a not-for-profit association))
(2017/C 014/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Respondent: Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a not-for-profit association, in return for financial compensation, of one of its members to a user undertaking for the purposes of that member carrying out, as his main occupation and under the direction of that user undertaking, work in return for remuneration, where that member is protected on that basis in the Member State concerned, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, even if that member does not have the status of worker under national law on the ground that he has not concluded a contract of employment with that association.


(1)  
            OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case T-157/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Fedtke v EESC (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Purely confirmatory act — New substantive facts — Burden of proof)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017006EN.01003602.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/36





Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Fedtke v EESC
(Case T-157/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Purely confirmatory act - New substantive facts - Burden of proof))
(2017/C 006/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Ingrid Fedtke (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wagenbäur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F-107/15, EU:2016:F:15), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Fedtke v EESC (F-107/15);










2.


Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (OJ L 158, 27.5.2014)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: bio-ethics, experiment on humans, health control, market approval, medical research, medicinal product, testing








L_2016311EN.01002501.xml










17.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 311/25







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 158 of 27 May 2014
)

On page 28, Article 23(5):
for:


                  ‘Where the conclusion … is that the substantial modification is not acceptable, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of the Member State concerned.’,

read:


                  ‘Where the conclusion … is that the substantial modification is not acceptable, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all Member States concerned.’.
Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-18/16)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, application of EU law, chemical product, dangerous substance, explosive, market approval








C_2017009EN.01004001.xml










12.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/40





Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-18/16)
(2017/C 9/10)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 2 May 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 2 March 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, as referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Withdrawal of Commission proposals
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: proposal (EU)








C_2016422EN.01000201.xml










17.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/2





WITHDRAWAL OF COMMISSION PROPOSALS
(2016/C 422/02)

List of withdrawn proposals








Document


Inter-institutional procedure


Title





Foreign Affairs & Security Policy





COM/2013/097


2013/0059 (COD)


Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Registered Traveller Programme
Case T-315/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy transport, registered trade mark, soft energy, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01003502.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/35





Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2016 — Vince v EUIPO (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
(Case T-315/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 006/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dale Vince (Stroud, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 1442/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELECTRIC HIGHWAY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Dale Vince to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Case T-807/16: Action brought on 17 November 2016 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Afnor (N & NF TRADING)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, delivery, packaging, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law, transport company








C_2017022EN.01004801.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/48





Action brought on 17 November 2016 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Afnor (N & NF TRADING)
(Case T-807/16)
(2017/C 022/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Association française de normalisation (Afnor) (La Plaine Saint-Denis, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘N & NF TRADING’ — International registration No 1 086 884 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 1109/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-584/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC v Enedis, SA
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, purchase price, solar energy








C_2017038EN.01001101.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC v Enedis, SA
(Case C-584/16)
(2017/C 038/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC

Defendant: Enedis, SA

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?










2.


If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?
Case C-583/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC v Enedis, SA
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, purchase price, solar energy








C_2017038EN.01001001.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC v Enedis, SA
(Case C-583/16)
(2017/C 038/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC

Defendant: Enedis, SA

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?










2.


If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?
Action brought on 17 November 2016 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-14/11 COSTS)
Date: 2016-11-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: interest, legal expenses, postal service, transport company








C_2017073EN.01002001.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/20





Action brought on 17 November 2016 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-14/11 COSTS)
(2017/C 73/10)
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell of Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, NO-0151 Oslo, Norway.
The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:






1.


The total amount of the remaining costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, and Schenker Privpak AS, is fixed at EUR 183 951.










2.


That amount shall bear interest for late payment from the date on which the present order is served on the parties until the date of actual payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline falls, increased by three and a half percentage points.




Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The applicants, collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’, run business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. DB Schenker was the applicant in Case E-14/11 against the EFTA Surveillance Authority before the EFTA Court.










—


Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states.

‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’











—


In the judgment of Case E-14/11, the EFTA Court ordered the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.