do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 June 2017 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2017175EN.01000201.xml










2.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/2





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 June 2017
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 June 2017
(2017/C 175/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1219 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,53 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4394 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87230 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7760 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0883 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4895 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,397 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,55 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1830 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5685 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9715 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5182 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5155 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7419 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5870 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5525 




KRW


South Korean won


1 258,40 




ZAR


South African rand


14,6408 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6389 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4130 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 932,49 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8107 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,776 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,5329 




THB


Thai baht


38,313 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6135 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9199 




INR


Indian rupee


72,3235 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8448 — Hellman &amp; Friedman/Allfunds Bank) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2017175EN.01000102.xml










2.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8448 — Hellman & Friedman/Allfunds Bank)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 175/02)
On 24 May 2017, 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 32017M8448. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-356/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, clothing, cosmetic product, leather, medical device, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01007101.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/71





Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
(Case T-356/17)
(2017/C 239/82)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RoB’ — EU trade mark No 5 752 324

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1407/2016-2

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 Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
Case C-330/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V. v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Internet address, advertising, air freight rate, air transport, consumer, establishment, euro, national currency, residence








C_2017293EN.01001602.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V. v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-330/17)
(2017/C 293/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V.

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the air fares for intra-Community air services to be indicated under the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) be indicated in a particular currency, in so far as they are not expressed in euro?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
In which local currency may the prices referred to in Article 2(18) and the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 be indicated, where an air carrier established in a Member State (in the present case Germany) advertises and offers an air service with a point of departure in another Member State (in this case the United Kingdom) to a consumer on the internet?
In this respect, does it depend on whether an internet address with a country-specific top-level domain (in this case: www.germanwings.de) that refers to the Member State in which the air carrier is established and in which the consumer resides is used for the offer?
Is it relevant that all or the overwhelming majority of air carriers indicate the prices in question in the local currency used in the place of departure?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation in air services in the Community, OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Romania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Romania, action programme, air quality, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, waste incineration








C_2017177EN.01000301.xml










3.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/3





Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Romania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(2017/C 177/04)
On 2 June 2017, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2017) 3619 on the notification by Romania of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8405 — Lear/Grupo Antolín Assets) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2017175EN.01000101.xml










2.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8405 — Lear/Grupo Antolín Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 175/01)
On 11 April 2017, 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 32017M8405. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information on the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Seychelles on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU waters, Mayotte, Seychelles, agreement (EU), conservation of fish stocks, fishing permit, fishing rights, resources of the sea, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2017142EN.01000101.xml










2.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 142/1







Information on the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of the Seychelles on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union

The European Union and the Republic of Seychelles signed, on 20 May 2014, in Brussels, an Agreement on access for fishing vessels flying the flag of the Seychelles to waters and marine biological resources of Mayotte, under the jurisdiction of the European Union.
The European Union notified on 10 February 2015 that it had completed the internal procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Agreement. The Republic of Seychelles notified on 18 May 2017.
The Agreement consequently entered into force on 18 May 2017 pursuant to Article 19 thereof.
Case C-332/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 June 2017 — AS Starman v Tarbijakaitseamet
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract, regulation of telecommunications, telephone, telephone charges








C_2017256EN.01001602.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 June 2017 — AS Starman v Tarbijakaitseamet
(Case C-332/17)
(2017/C 256/15)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AS Starman

Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 to be interpreted as meaning that a trader can make available a telephone number for which a higher rate than the normal rate applies if the trader, in addition to the telephone number at a higher rate, also offers consumers, in a comprehensible and easily accessible way, a landline number at the normal rate for the purposes of contacting him in relation to a contract concluded?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU preclude a situation in which a consumer who voluntarily uses a telephone number with a higher rate for contacting a trader in relation to a concluded contract, despite the provision by the trader of a telephone number at the normal rate in a comprehensible and easily accessible manner, is obliged to pay the higher rate for contacting the trader?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the limitation in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 oblige the trader, together with the speed dial number, everywhere also to present a landline number at the normal rate and information on the differences in price?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Case T-355/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, clothing, cosmetic product, leather, medical device, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01007001.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/70





Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
(Case T-355/17)
(2017/C 239/81)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘RoB’ — EU trade mark No 5 284 104

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 in Case R 1405/2016-2

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 Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
Case T-352/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, freedom of expression, gender equality, indemnification, principle of proportionality








C_2017239EN.01006901.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/69





Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
(Case T-352/17)
(2017/C 239/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, A. Daoût and M. Dekleermaker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


Declare this action admissible and well-founded;




Consequently:






—


Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017;










—


Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 14 March 2017;










—


Order reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss caused by the contested decisions, or award the applicant the sum of EUR 19 180;










—


In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of freedom of expression, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter, with the particular circumstance that the remarks referred to in the contested decisions were made by a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his functions and inside the premises of the European Union institutions, and infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, of Article 41 of the Charter, of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, of Article 296 TFEU, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, the general principle of proportionality, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.