do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017279EN.01000201.xml










23.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 August 2017
(2017/C 279/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1771 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,73 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4377 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91713 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5390 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1364 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3023 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,083 




HUF


Hungarian forint


303,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2818 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5868 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1170 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4887 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4806 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2129 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6165 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6032 




KRW


South Korean won


1 335,14 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5407 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8430 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4045 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 706,05 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0392 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,330 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4840 




THB


Thai baht


39,127 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7102 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7907 




INR


Indian rupee


75,4515 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-514/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 August 2017 — Ministère public v Marin-Simion Sut
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, extradition, fine, imprisonment, social rehabilitation








C_2017347EN.01002301.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 August 2017 — Ministère public v Marin-Simion Sut
(Case C-514/17)
(2017/C 347/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministère public

Defendant: Marin-Simion Sut

Question referred

Can Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (1) be interpreted as being inapplicable to acts for which a custodial sentence has been imposed by a court of an issuing Member State, when those same acts are punishable in the territory of the executing Member State only by a fine, which means, in accordance with the domestic law of the executing Member State, that the custodial sentence cannot be executed in the executing Member State, which would be to the detriment of the social rehabilitation of the person sentenced and of his family, social and other ties?


(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7873 — Worldline/Equens/Paysquare) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, merger control








C_2017279EN.01000101.xml










23.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7873 — Worldline/Equens/Paysquare)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 279/01)
On 20 April 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32016M7873. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: India, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, plastics








C_2017279EN.01001101.xml










23.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/11





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
(2017/C 279/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Polyethylene terephthalate


India


Anti-subsidy duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 461/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (OJ L 137, 23.5.2013, p. 1).


24.5.2018






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-209/17: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, education, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017338EN.01002201.xml










9.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/22





Order of the General Court of 23 August 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)
(Case T-209/17) (1)

(2017/C 338/25)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8561 — KKR/Q Park) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, parking area








C_2017279EN.01001201.xml










23.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8561 — KKR/Q Park)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 279/06)






1.


On 16 August 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 KKR & Co. L.P. (‘KKR’, USA) indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertaking Q Park NV (‘Q Park’, Netherlands), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


KKR is a global investment firm which offers a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,










—


Q Park is a limited liability company headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, which constructs, renovates, and operates off-street parking facilities.














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.8561 — KKR/Q Park, 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-574/17: Action brought on 23 August 2017 — UD v Commission
Date: 2017-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: health expenditure, therapeutics








C_2017369EN.01003201.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/32





Action brought on 23 August 2017 — UD v Commission
(Case T-574/17)
(2017/C 369/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UD (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 2 November 2016 by which the Commission refused to grant prior authorisation for the reimbursement of medical costs relating to the applicant’s medical treatment;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment vitiating the ground for refusal to reimburse based on the alleged lack of scientific validity of the treatment at issue.