do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016480EN.01000201.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 December 2016
(2016/C 480/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0421 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4342 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84240 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6385 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0689 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0260 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4082 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5194 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6607 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4342 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3932 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0887 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5052 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5036 




KRW


South Korean won


1 243,87 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5366 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2369 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5303 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 000,60 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6681 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,002 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,6682 




THB


Thai baht


37,510 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4729 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3048 




INR


Indian rupee


70,7380 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, data-processing law, personal data, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017070EN.01002102.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/21





Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
(Case T-435/16)
(2017/C 070/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare the present action admissible and well founded;
as a result,






—


annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016;










—


order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and, in particular, of Articles 8, 13 and 20 thereof. The applicant also alleges infringement of the fundamental right of access to personal data and of the right to respect for private life, as well as infringement of the principles of the rights of the defence, equality of arms and the right to good administration. In addition, it argues that the contested decision is vitiated by an unlawful and unfounded statement of reasons. All those illegalities constitute as many instances of misconduct which have caused the applicant real and certain harm.
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 22 December 2016 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Bank of Greece (ECB/2016/46)
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Greece, accountant, appointment of staff, auditing, central bank, self-employed person








C_2017003EN.01000101.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 22 December 2016
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Bank of Greece
(ECB/2016/46)
(2017/C 3/01)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of the Bank of Greece’s current external auditors, KPMG Certified Auditors AE, will end following the audit for the financial year 2016. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2017.










(3)


The Bank of Greece has selected Deloitte Certified Public Accountants S.A. as its external auditors for the financial years 2017 to 2021,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Deloitte Certified Public Accountants S.A. should be appointed as the external auditors of the Bank of Greece for the financial years 2017 to 2021.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 22 December 2016.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case T-866/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law, vehicle rental








C_2017053EN.01003301.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/33





Action brought on 22 December 2016 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)
(Case T-866/16)
(2017/C 053/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘billiger-mietwagen.de’ — Application No 14 343 099

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 in Case R 206/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-912/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, electrical engineering, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01003401.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/34





Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)
(Case T-912/16)
(2017/C 063/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘RROFA’ — Application for registration No 12 699 534

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2392/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-665/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2016 — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Treasury, VAT, financial equalisation, municipality, public property, real property, transfer of property








C_2017112EN.01001501.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2016 — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław
(Case C-665/16)
(2017/C 112/23)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Minister Finansów

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Gmina Wrocław

Questions referred

Does the transfer, pursuant to the law, of the ownership of immovable property owned by a municipality to the State Treasury in return for payment of compensation, in the case where, under the rules of national law, that immovable property continues to be managed by the mayor of the municipality, who is simultaneously the representative of the State Treasury and the executive body of the municipality, constitute a taxable transaction within the meaning of Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

In answering that question, is it significant whether the compensation paid to the municipality consists of an actual payment or is a mere internal accounting transfer within the municipal budget?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, publishing








C_2016480EN.01000102.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8299 — De Agostini Libri/Editorial Planeta/DeA Planeta Libri JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 480/02)
On 13 December 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 Italian 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 32016M8299. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, postal service








C_2016480EN.01000101.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 480/01)
On 15 December 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 32016M8280. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-907/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, joint venture, merger control, turnover








C_2017063EN.01003302.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/33





Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
(Case T-907/16)
(2017/C 063/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia (OJ 2016 C 374, p. 1)).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Paragraph 147 of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice’)
In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the examination of the contested concentration does not come within the Commission’s competence. Had the applicant, correctly, not been regarded as a participating undertaking, the turnover thresholds indicated in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 would not have been met.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons
The applicant claims, in this regard, that, although the Commission did refer to the existence of the exceptional case in Paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice, it failed to prove that the conditions actually existed for such an exceptional case.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Case T-905/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017053EN.01004201.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/42





Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)
(Case T-905/16)
(2017/C 053/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NUIT PRECIEUSE’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 063 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 2596/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Chefaro Ireland.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Portugal, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2016480EN.01000401.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/4





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2016/C 480/05)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


30.11.2016




Duration


30.11.2016-31.12.2016




Member State


Portugal




Stock or Group of stocks


GFB/89- and special condition GFB/*567-




Species


Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides)




Zone


Union and international waters of VIII and IX and Union and international waters of V, VI, VII




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


40/TQ1367






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Call for applications 2016 — Third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, action programme, financial aid, health policy, invitation to tender








C_2016480EN.01000501.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/5





Call for applications 2016
Third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 480/06)
A call for applications for Rare diseases — Support for new registries (Call ID HP-06-2016) is launched today in the framework of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (1).
This call for applications consists of:






—


a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of project grants.




Deadline for online submissions of the proposals is 21 March 2017.
All the information, including the Commission Decision of 1 March 2016 on the adoption of the work programme for 2016 for implementation of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme, are available on the website of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) at the following address:
http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, p. 1).
Information from the Commission pursuant to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1795
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ADN agreement, ADR agreement, EU Member State, common transport policy, environmental protection, international transport, rail transport, technical standard, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety








C_2016480EN.01000301.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/3





Information from the Commission pursuant to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1795
(2016/C 480/04)
Pursuant to Article 3 of Council Decision (EU) 2016/1795 of 29 September 2016 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to the amendments to the Annexes to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) and to the Annexed Regulations to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) (1), the Commission informs that the accepted amendments are available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr2015_amend.html and https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/adr/depnoti/CN-744-2016e.pdf for ADR, as well as at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adn/adn2015_amend.html and https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2016/dgwp15ac2/Legal_office/CN.743.2016-Eng.pdf for ADN. They will enter into force on 1 January 2017.


(1)  OJ L 274, 11.10.2016, p. 52.
Judgment of the Court of 22 December 2016 in Case E-6/16 — Fjarskipti hf. v The Icelandic Post and Telecom Administration (Provision of telecommunications services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Electronic communications network — Electronic communications service — Public communications network)
Date: 2016-12-22
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, Internet, mobile phone, postal and telecommunications services, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network








C_2017133EN.01000601.xml










27.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/6





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 22 December 2016
in Case E-6/16
Fjarskipti hf. v The Icelandic Post and Telecom Administration
(Provision of telecommunications services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Electronic communications network — Electronic communications service — Public communications network)
(2017/C 133/06)
In Case E-6/16, Fjarskipti hf. v the Icelandic Post and Telecom Administration — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 December 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The definition in Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the term ‘electronic communications network’ must be interpreted as encompassing a system allowing for the conveyance of signals written as an SMS message on a user’s end device, connected through a web browser, via the internet, to the PHP script software on a telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, which receives the signals, processes them and conveys them in turn to an SMS server in the undertaking’s communications system, which then conveys them over a network to the recipient telephone number.










2.


The definition in Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the term ‘electronic communications service’ encompasses a service that consists of the conveyance of signals which takes place on a communications network, as described in the first question, irrespective of whether a fee is collected for such a service, provided that the service is normally provided for remuneration.










3.


The definition in Article 2(d) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the term ‘public communications network’ must be interpreted as covering a network as described in the first question, used to provide services as described in the second question, irrespective of whether those services are made available only to the subscribers of the particular undertaking, provided that the network is used wholly or mainly for the provision of such publicly available services.