do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017025EN.01000201.xml










25.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 January 2017
(2017/C 25/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0748 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,85 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86350 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4985 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0738 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9578 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,27 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3725 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5015 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0465 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4198 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4267 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3377 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4852 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5246 




KRW


South Korean won


1 252,27 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3643 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3721 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5045 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 318,83 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7667 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,510 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,6559 




THB


Thai baht


37,844 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4000 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8856 




INR


Indian rupee


73,1890 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-768/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Pocemon project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, cost analysis, financial aid, interest, payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2017070EN.01001502.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/15





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission
(Case T-768/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Pocemon project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))
(2017/C 070/21)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 216088 to fund the project entitled ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;










2.


ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;










3.


ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-42/17: Action brought on 25 January 2017 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financial instrument, bank, company in difficulties, financial legislation, financing plan, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, right to justice








C_2017078EN.01003801.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/38





Action brought on 25 January 2017 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB
(Case T-42/17)
(2017/C 078/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG (Siegburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions affect the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-14/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Case T-187/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LITU — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Chile, EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017070EN.01002001.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/20





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
(Case T-187/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LITU - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 070/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 (Case R 719/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik and Viña y Bodega Botalcura.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Commission Communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services for air cargo and mail
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Azores, Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, Portugal, air transport, inland transport, load, postal service, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2017025EN.01000301.xml










25.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/3





Commission Communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services for air cargo and mail
(2017/C 25/03)






Member State


Portugal




Route


Lisbon-Terceira-Ponta Delgada-Lisbon
or
Lisbon-Ponta Delgada-Terceira-Lisbon




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


As from 1 April 2017




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


All documents are available at:
http://www.saphety.com
and from the national civil aviation authority
concurso.osp@anac.pt
For more information, please contact:





Ministry of Planning and Infrastructure




Office of the Secretary of State for Infrastructure




Av. Barbosa do Bocage no 5 — 2o andar




1049-039 Lisbon




PORTUGAL




Email: gab.infraestruturas@mpi.gov.pt
Case C-39/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs union, economic value, free movement of goods, social-security contribution, transit, turnover








C_2017112EN.01002201.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures
(Case C-39/17)
(2017/C 112/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS

Defendant: Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

Question referred

Is it contrary to Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the value of goods transferred from France to another Member State of the European Union by or on behalf of an entity subject to the social solidarity contribution payable by companies and to the contribution additional to the latter or on that account, for the purposes of its business, to be taken into account for determining the overall turnover that constitutes the basis of assessment to those contributions?
Case C-582/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Mutual recognition of judgments — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Scope — Article 28 — Transitional provision — Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, ruling








C_2017078EN.01000401.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde
(Case C-582/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Scope - Article 28 - Transitional provision - Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’))
(2017/C 078/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party in the main proceedings

Gerrit van Vemde

Intervening parties: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it covers only judgments which became final before the date specified by the Member State concerned.


(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013) (Corrected version in OJ L 321, 30.11.2013)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: banking policy, credit institution, financial control, financial legislation, investment company, market supervision, private-sector liquidity, trade information




L_2017020EN.01000201.xml










25.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 20/2







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 27 June 2013
)


(Corrected version in 
Official Journal of the European Union L 321 of 30 November 2013
)


The following references are to the corrected version.
On page 38, Article 19(2), point (c):
for:







‘(c)


… as far as the objectives of the supervision of credit institutions are concerned.’,





read:







‘(c)


… as far as the objectives of the supervision of institutions are concerned.’;





on page 47, Article 36(1), point (j):
for:







‘(j)


the amount of items required to be deducted from Additional Tier 1 items pursuant to Article 56 that exceeds the Additional Tier 1 capital of the institution;’,





read:







‘(j)


the amount of items required to be deducted from Additional Tier 1 items pursuant to Article 56 that exceeds the Additional Tier 1 items of the institution;’;





on page 56, Article 56, point (e):
for:







‘(e)


the amount of items required to be deducted from Tier 2 items pursuant to Article 66 that exceed the Tier 2 capital of the institution;’,





read:







‘(e)


the amount of items required to be deducted from Tier 2 items pursuant to Article 66 that exceeds the Tier 2 items of the institution;’;





on page 132, Article 199(3), first subparagraph, point (a):
for:







‘(a)


losses stemming from loans collateralised by residential property up to 80 % of the market value or 80 % of the mortgage-lending-value, unless …’,





read:







‘(a)


losses stemming from loans collateralised by residential property up to 80 % of the market value or 80 % of the mortgage lending value, unless …’;





on page 132, Article 199(4), first subparagraph, point (a):
for:







‘(a)


losses stemming from loans collateralised by commercial immovable property up to 50 % of the market value or 60 % of the mortgage-lending-value do not exceed …’,





read:







‘(a)


losses stemming from loans collateralised by commercial immovable property up to 50 % of the market value or 60 % of the mortgage lending value do not exceed …’;





on page 181, Article 284(6), third sentence, the formula:
for:


                     ‘
                     


                     ’,

read:


                     ‘
                     


                     ’