do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016485EN.01000201.xml










28.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 485/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 December 2016
(2016/C 485/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0445 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4352 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85300 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6588 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0754 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1078 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4090 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5313 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6777 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4532 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4136 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1043 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5168 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5130 




KRW


South Korean won


1 260,98 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5792 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2619 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5565 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 046,52 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6785 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,959 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,4525 




THB


Thai baht


37,612 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4256 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5344 




INR


Indian rupee


71,0430 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8267 — Everis Initiatives/Bankia/Nettit Collaborative Payment) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2016485EN.01000101.xml










28.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 485/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8267 — Everis Initiatives/Bankia/Nettit Collaborative Payment)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 485/01)
On 20 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 the Spanish 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 32016M8267. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-919/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity, right to justice








C_2017070EN.01002301.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/23





Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament
(Case T-919/16)
(2017/C 070/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant,










—


rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union,










—


compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision,










—


order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.





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 violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8271 — Hitachi Chemical Company/FIAMM/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2016485EN.01000301.xml










28.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 485/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8271 — Hitachi Chemical Company/FIAMM/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 485/03)






1.


On 19 December 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 Hitachi Chemical Company Ltd (‘HCC’, Japan) controlled by Hitachi Ltd and FIAMM S.p.A. (‘FIAMM’, Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of FIAMM’s lead acid battery business by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for HCC: the production of functional materials such as electronics materials, inorganic materials, polymer science materials and printed wiring board materials and the production of advanced components and systems, such as automotive products, energy storage devices, electronics components and other diagnostic agents and instruments,










—


for FIAMM: the manufacture of automotive components such as horns, antennas and starter batteries and industrial (stand-by) batteries,










—


the joint venture encompasses the automotive and industrial lead acid batteries business of FIAMM, which will be jointly controlled by HCC and FIAMM.














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.8271 — Hitachi Chemical Company/FIAMM/JV, 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-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, furniture industry, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01000601.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/6





Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-686/16 P)
(2017/C 161/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and Dr M. Bagh, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2016 (T-776/15);










—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2015 (Case R 0531/2015-1);










—


annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 January 2015;










—


order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs of all the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based on a misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with an infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
The basis for the claim that the Rules of Procedure were infringed is that the General Court did not base its judgment on the understanding of the word element of the trade mark which had been established in the Board of Appeal’s decision, but applied its own understanding of that word element and thus changed the subject-matter of the proceedings.
The basis for the claim that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 was misinterpreted is that the General Court regards an indication of the geographical origin of a specific type of product that is designated by means of its main constituent material (Meissen Keramik) as descriptive even in relation to goods which contain components — no matter how insignificant — consisting of that material or goods which can be associated with goods of the type designated.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-916/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission
Date: 2016-12-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, administrative procedure, equal treatment, indemnification, interest, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017046EN.01002802.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/28





Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission
(Case T-916/16)
(2017/C 046/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 30 September 2016 on his complaint and order the defendant to adopt a decision on the calculation of capital value at the time of the registration of the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2011;










—


in the alternative, order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to EUR 19 920,39, payable to the applicant’s pension account.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of a fair trial, and infringement of the obligations regarding information and consultation
The applicant submits that, by processing his claim in a slow manner, the defendant infringed all of the principles governing the proper conduct of an administrative procedure. The applicant was also not given the opportunity to set out his views orally before the measure adversely affecting him was adopted.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality
With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant states that similar claims of other colleagues, who were not older than him, were processed much more quickly, with no objective reason being provided to justify that difference in treatment.










3.


Third plea in law: breach of the protection of legitimate expectations
The applicant concludes by contesting the deduction of interest from his calculated capital value for the period between the lodging of his claim and the final transfer of the lump sum, about which the applicant had not previously been informed.