do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017216EN.01000301.xml










6.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 July 2017
(2017/C 216/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1329 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87735 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6243 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0950 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4965 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,109 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2463 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5881 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0611 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4916 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4682 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8442 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5575 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5672 




KRW


South Korean won


1 307,79 




ZAR


South African rand


15,1267 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7060 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4143 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 159,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8697 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,419 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,8200 




THB


Thai baht


38,570 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7545 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7053 




INR


Indian rupee


73,4075 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-508/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the bonus scheme — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB — Equal treatment)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, bonus payment, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, monthly pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017277EN.01004501.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/45





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB
(Case T-508/16) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the bonus scheme - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 277/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 450 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially, C. Gómez de la Cruz, G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and, subsequently, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions, contained in the bonus statements for April 2013, applying to the applicants the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of the EIB Management Committee of 9 November 2010, 29 June 2011, 16 November 2011 and 20 February 2013; and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay to the applicants a sum corresponding to the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of the abovementioned decisions and the amount of remuneration due under the previous system, or, in the alternative, the amount of remuneration due under the new scheme when correctly implemented, as well as compensation for the material damage resulting from loss of purchasing power and for the non-material damage which the applicants claim to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-Pierre Bodson and the other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-61/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8516 — EPH/Centrica Langage and Centrica SHB) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, merger control, power plant








C_2017216EN.01003301.xml










6.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/33





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8516 — EPH/Centrica Langage and Centrica SHB)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 216/06)






1.


On 27 June 2017 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Energetický a průmyslový holding, a.s. (‘EPH’, Czech Republic) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Centrica Langage Ltd (‘Centrica Langage’, UK) and Centrica SHB Ltd (‘Centrica SHB’, UK) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for EPH: EPH is a utility company engaged in brown coal extraction, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas transmission, distribution, and storage. EPH is mainly active in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland and the UK;
—   for Centrica Langage: Centrica Langage is a gas-fired power plant located near Plymouth, UK, with an installed capacity for electricity generation of approximately 905 MW;
—   for Centrica SHB: Centrica SHB is a gas-fired power plant located near Stallingborough, UK, with an installed capacity for electricity generation of approximately 1 310 MW.










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 the 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.8516 — EPH/Centrica Langage and Centrica SHB, 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 T-421/17: Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information, judicial proceedings, provision of documents








C_2017293EN.01003801.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/38





Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament
(Case T-421/17)
(2017/C 293/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Parliament’s decision of 3 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to its decision of 8 July 2015 adopted in response to a confirmatory application made by a third party under Regulation 1049/2001;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings, contained in Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.






—


It is argued that the requested document is a final administrative document, not protected by confidentiality or any other non-disclosure exception. Furthermore, even if such an exception were to apply in the present case, it is argued that the defendant has manifestly misinterpreted or misapplied it by failing to show how the disclosure of the requested document would undermine the protection of court proceedings.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, as a subsidiary ground, error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of the Transparency Regulation.
Case C-505/16 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Modification of the form of order sought — Statement submitted in the name and on behalf of the deceased applicant)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, inheritance, international sanctions, territorial dispute, territorial law, trade restriction








C_2017300EN.01000801.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/8





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-505/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Modification of the form of order sought - Statement submitted in the name and on behalf of the deceased applicant))
(2017/C 300/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Bartelt and J. Norris-Usher, and then by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case C-392/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Dumitru Marcu v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 199(1)(c) — No VAT registration — Reverse charge — Hypothetical nature of the question referred — Inadmissibility of the question referred)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax inspection, tax law, taxpayer








C_2017283EN.01001002.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/10





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Dumitru Marcu v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
(Case C-392/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(c) - No VAT registration - Reverse charge - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the question referred))
(2017/C 283/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dumitru Marcu

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
Case C-139/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — National word mark La Milla de Oro — Grounds for refusal of registration or invalidity — Signs indicating geographical origin)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Spain, designation of origin, product designation, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01000502.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/5





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos — Spain) — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, SA
(Case C-139/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - National word mark La Milla de Oro - Grounds for refusal of registration or invalidity - Signs indicating geographical origin))
(2017/C 283/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba, Rodrigo Moreno Benavente

Defendant: Abadía Retuerta SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


A sign such as ‘la Milla de Oro’, referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality, cannot constitute an indication of geographical origin, since that sign must be accompanied by a name designating a geographical place so that the actual physical space with which a strong concentration of a product or service of a high degree of value or quality is associated may be identified.










2.


Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as ‘la Milla de Oro’, referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that such a product or service can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value, is unlikely to have characteristics the use of which as a trade mark would constitute a ground for invalidity within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case T-74/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — France v Commission (State aid — Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM — Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan — Private investor in a market economy test — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, maritime transport, reimbursement of aid








C_2017277EN.01003002.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/30





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — France v Commission
(Case T-74/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM - Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan - Private investor in a market economy test - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons))
(2017/C 277/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, and subsequently D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013, concerning State aid SA.16237 (C 58/2002) (ex N 118/2002) implemented by France in favour of SNCM.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case C-404/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, foreign national, right of asylum








C_2017293EN.01002101.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket
(Case C-404/17)
(2017/C 293/26)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Question referred

Is an application in which the applicant’s information is deemed to be reliable and so is taken as the basis for the assessment, but insufficient to form the basis of a need for international protection on the ground that the country-of-origin information suggests that there is acceptable protection, to be regarded as clearly unfounded under Article 31(8) of the recast Asylum Procedure Directive? (1)



(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Case T-1/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — SNCM v Commission (State aid — Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM — Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan — Private investor in a market economy test — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Social policy of the Member States — Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, equal treatment, maritime transport, reimbursement of aid, right to justice








C_2017277EN.01003201.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/32





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — SNCM v Commission
(Case T-1/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM - Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan - Private investor in a market economy test - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Social policy of the Member States - Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
(2017/C 277/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, C. Froitzheim and A. Dupuis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Comité d’entreprise de la Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Corsica Ferries France (Bastia, France) (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013, concerning State aid SA.16237 (C 58/2002) (ex N 118/2002) implemented by France in favour of SNCM.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and Corsica Ferries France;










3.


Orders the comité d’entreprise de la Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Case C-180/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Decision taken by the European Commission following annulment in part of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union — Amendment of fines — Rights of the defence — No adoption of a new statement of objections — Equal treatment — Joint venture — Calculation of the starting amount — Extent of contribution to the infringement — Res judicata)
Date: 2017-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, electrical equipment, equal treatment, joint venture, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2017283EN.01000601.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/6





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission
(Case C-180/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision taken by the European Commission following annulment in part of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of fines - Rights of the defence - No adoption of a new statement of objections - Equal treatment - Joint venture - Calculation of the starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement - Res judicata))
(2017/C 283/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Jourdan, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.