do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018274EN.01000201.xml










6.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 August 2018
(2018/C 274/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1588 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4526 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89050 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3193 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1528 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5410 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,657 




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,75 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2612 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6202 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,8958 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5689 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5085 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0955 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7170 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5838 




KRW


South Korean won


1 303,12 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4869 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9195 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4068 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 760,07 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7164 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,503 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,3448 




THB


Thai baht


38,547 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3394 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6300 




INR


Indian rupee


79,5120 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-515/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione autonoma della Sardegna
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, public transport, services contract, transport company








C_2018436EN.01001701.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione autonoma della Sardegna
(Case C-515/18)
(2018/C 436/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) of 23 October 2007 be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority which intends directly to award a contract must take the necessary steps to publish or communicate to all operators potentially interested in operating the service the information necessary to allow such operators to submit a serious and reasonable offer?










2.


Must Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of 23 October 2007 be interpreted as meaning that, before directly awarding the contract, the competent authority must carry out a comparative assessment of all bids to operate the service which may have been received following publication of the prior information notice under that Article 7(4)?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Case C-516/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 August 2018 — QE v Sun Express Germany GmbH
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, damages








C_2018408EN.01003801.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/38






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 6 August 2018 — QE v Sun Express Germany GmbH
(Case C-516/18)
(2018/C 408/51)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QE

Defendant: Sun Express Germany GmbH
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 22 August 2018.
Case C-508/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v OG
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Germany, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department








C_2018364EN.01000801.xml










8.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/8






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v OG
(Case C-508/18)
(2018/C 364/07)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: OG

Questions referred







1.


Is the independence from the executive of a public prosecutor to be decided in accordance with his position under the relevant national legal system? If not what are the criteria according to which independence from the executive is to be decided?










2.


Is a public prosecutor who, in accordance with national law, is subject to a possible direction or instruction either directly or indirectly from a Ministry of Justice, sufficiently independent of the executive to be considered a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision (1)?










3.


If so, must the public prosecutor also be functionally independent of the executive and what are the criteria according to which functional independence is to be decided?










4.


If independent of the executive, is a public prosecutor who is confined to initiating and conducting investigations and assuring that such investigations are conducted objectively and lawfully, the issuing of indictments, executing judicial decisions and conducting the prosecution of criminal offences, and does not issue national warrants and may not perform judicial functions a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision?










5.


Is the Public Prosecutor in Lübeck a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 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 (Framework Decision) (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).
Notice concerning the entry into force of a Protocol between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Lebanon establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Lebanon, Mediterranean region (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, alternative dispute resolution, association agreement (EU), commercial arbitration, international commercial arbitration, protocol to an agreement, trade dispute








L_2018198EN.01000101.xml










6.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 198/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of a Protocol between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Lebanon establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part

The Protocol between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Lebanon establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 11 November 2010, shall, pursuant to its Article 23, enter into as from 1 September 2018.
Case C-509/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Lithuania, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department








C_2018364EN.01000802.xml










8.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/8






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF
(Case C-509/18)
(2018/C 364/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: PF

Questions referred







1.


Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) [of the Framework Decision (1)] is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?










2.


If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?










3.


Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?










4.


Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 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 (Framework Decision) (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).
Case C-517/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom of expression, ownership, packaging product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, product quality, tobacco industry, trade mark








C_2018364EN.01000901.xml










8.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé
(Case C-517/18)
(2018/C 364/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fédération des fabricants de cigares

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

Other party: Société nationale d’exploitation industrielle des tabacs et allumettes (SEITA)

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 (1) be interpreted as prohibiting the use, on unit packets, outside packaging and tobacco products, of any brand name calling to mind certain qualities, however well-known it is?










2.


Depending on the interpretation to be given to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Directive, do those provisions, in so far as they apply to names and trade marks, comply with the right to property, freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business and the principles of proportionality and legal certainty?










3.


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Article 13(1) and (3) of the Directive, taken in conjunction with those of Article 24(2) thereof, respect the right to property, freedom of expression, freedom to conduct business and the principle of proportionality?






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).
Case T-474/18: Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Veit v ECB
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), contract staff, equal treatment, pay, pay scale, professional experience








C_2018352EN.01004101.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/41






Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Veit v ECB
(Case T-474/18)
(2018/C 352/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sebastian Veit (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Kujath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 3 January 2018 concerning the applicant’s classification with effect from 1 January 2018, in so far as it attributes to the applicant only salary step 17 in salary band F/G;










—


annul the defendant’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application to be attributed salary step 83 in salary band F/G with effect from 1 January 2018;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following pleas in law:






1.


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
The first plea in law alleges that the defendant took only limited account of relevant professional experience in the case of internal candidates, in contrast to external candidates, who were in a comparable situation in an identical selection procedure.










2.


Infringement of the principle of the general duty of care
The second plea in law alleges that the defendant, without objective justification, treated the applicant, as a member of its own staff, less favourably in the classification than it treated candidates who were not yet employed by it.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, foodstuff, investment company, mass media, merger control, real property, retail trade, technology, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2018274EN.01000701.xml










6.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 274/05)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Sonae, SGPS, SA (‘Sonae’, Portugal), controlled by Efanor Investimentos, SA (Portugal),










—


Sonae Sierra, SGPS, SA (‘Sonae Sierra’, Portugal).




Sonae acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Sonae Sierra.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and by amendments to the Shareholders' Agreement.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Sonae: retail and wholesale distribution of food and non-food products and the management of related real estate assets; as well as telecommunications, media and technology. Other company groups controlled by Efanor Investimentos, SA, are active in the production of wood-based boards and related products as well as in tourism, hospitality, fitness, energy, refrigeration and HVAC,
—   for Sonae Sierra: international retail real estate group that develops, manages and invests in sustainable retail assets; and provides investment, development and property management services. Sonae Sierra is currently controlled by Sonae and Grosvenor Investments SARL (Portugal).


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.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8949 — Tenneco/Federal Mogul) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2018418EN.01000101.xml










19.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8949 — Tenneco/Federal Mogul)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 418/01)
On 6 August 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 32018M8949. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-478/18: Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, construction equipment, control of State aid, driving instruction








C_2018373EN.01001301.xml










15.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/13






Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission
(Case T-478/18)
(2018/C 373/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Hacène Bezouaoui (Avanne, France) and HB Consultant (Beure, France) (represented by: J.-F. Henrotte and N. Neyrinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the present action admissible and well founded. Consequently,










—


Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 2075 final of 10 April 2018 on Case SA.46897 (2018/NN) — France presumed aid — CACES [(Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate)];










—


Order the Commission 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 infringement of the concept of ‘causality assessment’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, in that the reimbursement of costs of construction plant driving safety training by State-authorised collecting bodies (Organismes paritaires de collecte agréés, OPCAs) means a use of State resources, the result of a measure attributable to the State. Thus, the applicants argue that the decision of which they seek the annulment disregards the case-law in Pearle (judgment of 15 July 2004, Pearle and Others, C-345/02, EU:C:2004:448).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘advantage’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken by the French State in the present case give an advantage to undertakings which provides training called ‘CACES®’ (Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate), as opposed to those providing training called ‘PCE®’ (Machinery Driving Licence).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘selectivity’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken are selective in nature. This plea in law is divided into three parts:






—


first part, alleging that the OPCAs are not entitled to discriminate between the various training courses which answer the same need and which have all been recognised by the French State;










—


second part, alleging that the interventions made by the French State have the effect of deceiving the OPCAs as to the training arrangements which meet the legal requirements and which may be reimbursed;










—


third part, alleging that the difference in treatment of the two training systems (CACES® and PCE®) is not justified by the nature or general scheme of a reference system.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8976 — Hisense/Gorenje) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, household electrical appliance, merger control, supply








C_2018314EN.01000101.xml










6.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8976 — Hisense/Gorenje)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 314/01)
On 6 August 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 32018M8976. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.