do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018258EN.01000301.xml










23.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 July 2018
(2018/C 258/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1670 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,94 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4520 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89445 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3908 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1633 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5905 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,875 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3229 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6523 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,5879 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5818 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5443 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1597 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7251 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5960 




KRW


South Korean won


1 322,71 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7066 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9210 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3956 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 941,92 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7453 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,292 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,0532 




THB


Thai baht


39,013 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4364 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1573 




INR


Indian rupee


80,3210 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8797 — Thales/Gemalto) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, astronautics, economic concentration, information security, land transport, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2018269EN.01000201.xml










31.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8797 — Thales/Gemalto)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 269/02)
On 23 July 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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 No M.8797 — Thales/Gemalto, 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’).
Case C-481/18: Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chronic illness, health control, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, organ transplantation, test tube fertilisation








C_2018328EN.01002901.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/29






Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-481/18)
(2018/C 328/38)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU;










—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU, to adopt, by 17 June 2014, the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law. Since the Italian Republic failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.


(1)  OJ 2012 L 327, p. 24.
Case C-480/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS ‘PrivatBank’
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, capital market, commercial arbitration, electronic money, financial legislation, financial supervision, payment system, penalty, provision of services








C_2018381EN.01000502.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS ‘PrivatBank’
(Case C-480/18)
(2018/C 381/07)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: AS ‘PrivatBank’

Other party to the proceedings: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Questions referred







1.


Is national legislation that empowers the [Latvian Financial and Capital Markets] Commission to examine complaints by payment service users even where the payment services have not been executed in euros or in the national currency of a Member State, and thus to find there to be infringements of the Law [on payment services and electronic money] and to impose penalties, compatible with Article 2(2) of Directive [2007/64/EC]? (1)











2.


Must Article 20(1) and (5) and Article 21(2) of the Directive be interpreted as allowing for the competent authority to supervise and impose penalties also in respect of payment services not executed in euros or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area?










3.


For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction?










4.


In carrying out the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive or the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, must the competent authority take account of an arbitral award made in settlement of a dispute between a payment service provider and a payment service user?






(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8908 — AXA/XL Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2018258EN.01001001.xml










23.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8908 — AXA/XL Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 258/09)

1.   
On 12 July 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:






—


AXA SA (‘AXA’) (France),










—


XL Group Ltd. (‘XL Group’) (Bermuda).




AXA acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of XL Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AXA is the holding company of the AXA Group, a worldwide player in insurance and asset management,










—


XL Group is a global insurance and reinsurance company providing property, casualty and specialty products.






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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8908 — AXA/XL Group
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8896 — Macquarie Group/The Goldman Sachs Group/HES International) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, storage








C_2018340EN.01000101.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8896 — Macquarie Group/The Goldman Sachs Group/HES International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 340/01)
On 23 July 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 32018M8896. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-486/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2018 — RE v Praxair MRC
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, dismissal, equal treatment, labour law, parental leave, part-time employment, sexual discrimination, vocational retraining








C_2018352EN.01002601.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2018 — RE v Praxair MRC
(Case C-486/18)
(2018/C 352/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RE

Defendant: Praxair MRC

Questions referred







1.


Are Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application to an employee who is on part-time parental leave at the time of his dismissal of a provision of domestic law, such as Article L. 3123-13 of the Labour Code, applicable at the material time, under which ‘the compensation payment for dismissal and retirement benefit payable to an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis for the same undertaking shall be calculated in proportion to the periods of each of those types of employment completed since the employee joined the undertaking’?










2.


Are Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 of the framework agreement, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, to be interpreted as precluding the application to an employee who is on part-time parental leave at the time of his dismissal of a provision of domestic law, such as Article R. 1233-32 of the Labour Code, under which, during a period of redeployment leave which exceeds the notice period, the employee is to receive a monthly payment from the employer of an amount equivalent to at least 65 % of the employee’s average gross monthly pay during the twelve months preceding the notice of dismissal, subject to the contributions referred to in Article L. 5422-9?










3.


If the answer to either of the preceding questions is in the affirmative, is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, such as Article L. 3123-13 of the Labour Code, applicable at the material time, and Article R. 1233-32 of that Code, insofar as a far greater number of women than men choose to take part-time parental leave and the indirect discrimination which results therefrom as regards the receipt of redundancy pay and redeployment leave allowance, which are less than those received by employees who have not taken part-time parental leave, is not justified by objective factors unrelated to any form of discrimination?






(1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.
Notice concerning the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, building materials, ceramics, import (EU), originating product








C_2018258EN.01000901.xml










23.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/9





Notice concerning the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of one company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
(2018/C 258/08)
Guangdong Monalisa Ceramics Co. Ltd, TARIC (1) additional code B179, a company subject to an anti-dumping duty rate of 30,6 % informed the Commission that it had changed its name into Monalisa Group Co., Ltd
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous name.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 (2).
Therefore, the reference in the Annex I to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2179 to:







‘Guangdong Monalisa Ceramics Co. Ltd


B179’





Should be read as







‘Monalisa Group Co., Ltd


B179’





The TARIC additional code B179 previously attributed to Guangdong Monalisa Ceramics Co. Ltd applies to Monalisa Group Co., Ltd


(1)  The integrated Tariff of the European Union.

(2)  OJ L 307, 23.11.2017, p. 25.
Case C-476/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 July 2018 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, travel








C_2018352EN.01002201.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 July 2018 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.
(Case C-476/18)
(2018/C 352/27)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt.

Defendant: WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where the air carrier informs passengers of the rescheduling the day before the originally scheduled departure date and, as a consequence of the change, passengers suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours compared with the originally scheduled arrival time, that is, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?










2.


Must Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers affected by a delay for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where, as a consequence of the rescheduling, they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8909 — KME/MKM) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alloy, copper, economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2018265EN.01001201.xml










27.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/12






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8909 — KME/MKM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 265/03)
On 23 July 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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 No M.8909 — KME/MKM, 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’).