do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018033EN.01000501.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 January 2018
(2018/C 33/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2379 




JPY


Japanese yen


134,75 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4427 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87940 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7823 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1563 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5548 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,297 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,34 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1436 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6530 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6755 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5302 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5269 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6783 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6881 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6220 




KRW


South Korean won


1 324,74 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8255 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8383 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4218 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 586,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8116 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,642 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,8633 




THB


Thai baht


38,920 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9209 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0316 




INR


Indian rupee


78,7055 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-50/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Tassi v Court of Justice
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, competition (EU), information profession, translation, transparency in decision-making








C_2018134EN.01002201.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/22





Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Tassi v Court of Justice
(Case T-50/18)
(2018/C 134/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Smaro Tassi (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173192) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/141, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/137, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2018033EN.01000201.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/2





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/141, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/137, concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia
(2018/C 33/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1), as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 (3), as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/137 (4).
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of designated persons, has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 October 2018, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, of the list of designated persons.


(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

(2)  OJ L 25, 30.1.2018, p. 38.

(3)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 25, 30.1.2018, p. 1.
Winding-up proceedings — Decision to commence winding-up proceedings with respect to Montepío de Conductores de Automóviles de Valladolid y Provincia, Mutualidad de Previsión Social (Published in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2018033EN.01001701.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/17





Winding-up proceedings
Decision to commence winding-up proceedings with respect to Montepío de Conductores de Automóviles de Valladolid y Provincia, Mutualidad de Previsión Social

(Published in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(2018/C 33/08)






Insurance undertaking







Montepío de Conductores de Automóviles de Valladolid y Provincia, Mutualidad de Previsión Social




C/Nicasio Pérez, 9, Entreplanta




47005 Valladolid




VALLADOLID




ESPAÑA








Date, entry into force and nature of the decision


Order EIC/942/2017 of 12 September 2017 withdrawing the administrative authorisation to pursue insurance activity from the undertaking Montepío de Conductores de Automóviles de Valladolid y Provincia, Mutualidad de Previsión Social and dissolving the undertaking and entrusting its winding-up to Spain’s insurance compensation consortium (Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros)




Competent authorities







Minister of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.




Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and Support to Enterprise




Paseo de la Castellana, 162




28046 Madrid




MADRID




ESPAÑA








Supervisory authority







Directorate-General for Insurance and Pension Funds




Paseo de la Castellana, 44




28046 Madrid




MADRID




ESPAÑA








Liquidator appointed







Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros




Paseo de la Castellana, 32




28046 Madrid




MADRID




ESPAÑA




Tel. +34 913395500




Fax +34 913395579




ccs@consorseguros.es




Miguel Ángel Cabo López








Applicable law


Spain
Law 20/2015 of 14 July 2015 on the organisation, supervision and solvency of insurers and reinsurers.
Royal Decree 1060/2015 of 20 November 2015 on the organisation, supervision and solvency of insurers and reinsurers.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8644 — AXA/NN Group/Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, real estate business, student residence








C_2018033EN.01000101.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8644 — AXA/NN Group/Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 33/01)
On 13 November 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 32017M8644. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8721 — Owens Corning/Paroc) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 351/05
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, building insulation, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019351EN.01000601.xml










17.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8721 — Owens Corning/Paroc)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 351/05)
On 30 January 2018, 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 32018M8721. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-59/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, Lombardy, Netherlands, North Holland, seat of institution, transparency in decision-making








C_2018094EN.01001501.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/15





Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
(Case C-59/18)
(2018/C 094/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, S. Fiorentino and C. Colelli, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:






—


annul the decision adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency, and, consequently, allocate that seat to the city of Milan.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government has brought an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the decision, adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that the new seat of the European Medicines Agency would be Amsterdam. In support of its action the Italian Government has put forward a single plea in law, alleging misuse of powers through failure to investigate adequately and distortion of facts, since there is inconsistency between the factual situation of the location of Amsterdam and the information provided in the bid.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8741 — KSS Holdings/Takata Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, safety device








C_2018033EN.01001801.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8741 — KSS Holdings/Takata Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 33/09)






1.


On 17 January 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Joyson KSS Auto Safety SA (‘KSS’, USA),










—


Takata Corporation (‘Takata’, Japan).




KSS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Takata.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KSS: active in the research and development, design, manufacture, marketing and sale of automotive safety systems, and more specifically passive safety products such as seat belts, airbags and steering wheels,
—   for Takata: autonomotive safety systems company supplying major automotive customers with a product range that includes seat belts, airbag systems, steering wheels, child seats and electronic devices such as satellite sensors and electronic control units.










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.










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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8741 — KSS Holdings/Takata Corporation
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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’).
Case T-46/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, Netherlands, North Holland, seat of institution, transparency in decision-making








C_2018094EN.01003501.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/35





Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council
(Case T-46/18)
(2018/C 094/46)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Comune di Milano (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of the 3579th meeting of the Council in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’), published by means of a press release containing the report (Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)), Presse 65, provisional version, in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the objective pursued by the Council by means of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established selection criteria. By contrast, choosing the new seat of the EMA by drawing lots without any preliminary investigations being carried out is at variance with the objective, established while the procedural rules were being set, of selecting the best offer through a transparent decision-making process on the basis of technical assessments and specific predetermined criteria, and made it impossible for the lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam to be verified.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and transparency.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision is unlawful inasmuch as it is the outcome of a decision-making process that was characterised by (i) its lack of formal structure and methods designed to guarantee the necessary transparency, and (ii) its failure to take adequate consideration of the factors relevant to the assessment at issue.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council decision of 1 November 2009 on the adoption of its internal rules as well as of its rules of procedure of 31 October 2017.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the manner in which the voting was carried out and the result of the Decision of 20 November 2017 also constitute grounds for the unlawfulness of that decision, since they infringe specific rules which the Council ought to have respected.
Case C-57/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2018 — AX v BW
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, temporary employment agency, wage earner








C_2018152EN.01001101.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2018 — AX v BW
(Case C-57/18)
(2018/C 152/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AX

Defendant: BW

Questions referred







1.


Must point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59/EC of the Council of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) (‘Directive 98/59/EC’) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the number of workers normally employed in an establishment, regard is to be had to the number of workers employed in the usual course of business at the time of the redundancy?










2.


Must point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the number of workers normally employed in a user undertaking’s business, account may be taken of temporary agency workers employed there?




If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:






3.


Which conditions apply to the taking into account of temporary agency workers for the purposes of determining the number of workers normally employed in a user undertaking’s business?






(1)  OJ L 225, p. 16.
Case T-51/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Kleani v Court of Justice
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, competition (EU), information profession, translation, transparency in decision-making








C_2018134EN.01002202.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/22





Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Kleani v Court of Justice
(Case T-51/18)
(2018/C 134/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Efterpi Kleani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Tassi, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20172046) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2018033EN.01000401.xml










30.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/4





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt
(2018/C 33/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana (No 15), Mr Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli (No 18) and Mrs Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar (No 19), persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (2), concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt.
The Council holds on its file new elements concerning the abovementioned persons. Furthermore, the Council intends to amend the statement of reasons concerning Mr Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli (No 18) and Mrs Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar (No 19).
The persons concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the information that relates to them, before 2 February 2018, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 5 of Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.


(1)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63.

(2)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.