do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018284EN.01000601.xml










13.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 August 2018
(2018/C 284/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1456 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,07 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4544 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89675 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4258 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1391 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5330 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,635 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,77 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2911 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6583 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9309 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5675 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5002 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9928 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7365 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5708 




KRW


South Korean won


1 293,54 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9272 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8468 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4333 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 583,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6809 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,833 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,8097 




THB


Thai baht


38,114 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3904 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6533 




INR


Indian rupee


78,8520 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-526/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, Sweden, foreign national, foreign student, police checks, residence permit, return migration, secondary education








C_2018381EN.01001601.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket
(Case C-526/18)
(2018/C 381/17)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AA

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of the Schengen Agreement or the Schengen Borders Code preclude provisions of national law such as those set out in Paragraph 16 of the Lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (Law (2016:752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden) and which mean that a residence permit for study at secondary school level may be granted to a third-country national who is in a Member State, even if his or her identity is unclear or he or she is unable to provide prima facie evidence of his or her stated identity?










2.


If, in such a situation, the Schengen acquis is deemed to include a requirement that identity has been made clear or for which prima facie evidence has been provided, can the provisions of the Returns Directive (1) or any other EU legislation be interpreted as permitting an exception from that identity requirement?






(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Case C-530/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Romania, child, jurisdiction, private international law, residence








C_2018399EN.01002302.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO
(Case C-530/18)
(2018/C 399/32)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance: EP

Respondent at first instance: FO

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (1) be interpreted as establishing an exception to the rule that the national courts of the place where the child is actually resident are to have jurisdiction?










2.


Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility be interpreted as meaning that the facts set out by a party to proceedings (namely: the child was born in France, her father is a French citizen, her blood relations in France include two sisters and a brother, a niece (her sister’s daughter), her paternal grandfather, her father’s current partner and their minor daughter, whereas she has no family ties on her mother’s side in Romania, she attends French school, her upbringing and mentality have always been French, the language spoken at home between the parents and by the parents to the child has always been French) are factors indicating that the child has a particular connection with France, and must the national court therefore declare that the French courts are better placed to hear the case?










3.


Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility be interpreted as meaning that the procedural differences between the legislation of the two States, such as hearings held in camera by specialised judges, are subject to the best interests of the child for the purposes of that provision [of EU law]?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Case C-528/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2018 by Outsource Professional Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, India, advertising, business management, education, financial services, insurance, outsourcing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018445EN.01000402.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/4






Appeal brought on 13 August 2018 by Outsource Professional Services Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-528/18 P)
(2018/C 445/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgement of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 in Case T-340/16;










—


confirm the decision of the Fourth board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in case number R 611/2015-4;










—


order Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the costs including the costs necessarily incurred by the EUTM owner/successor/appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the infringement of Union Law by the General Court, namely Article 52(1)b of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark, last amended by Council Regulation 2015/2424 (2).
The General Court erred in law by finding that the EUTM owner/predecessor was acting in bad faith when it filed an application to register the trade mark No 006035547. The General Court misinterpreted the concept of bad faith. There is nothing dishonest or unethical about using descriptive wording to describe a business. Hence the registration as a trademark was not in bad faith.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).
Case C-527/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2018 — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel e.V. v KIA Motors Corporation
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, commercial vehicle, disclosure of information, equal treatment, maintenance, motor car, technical specification, vehicle parts








C_2018445EN.01000401.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2018 — Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel e.V. v KIA Motors Corporation
(Case C-527/18)
(2018/C 445/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel e.V.

Defendant and respondent on a point of law: KIA Motors Corporation

Questions referred







1.


Do manufacturers have to supply the information to be provided to independent operators under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) in a form amenable to onward electronic processing?










2.


Is discrimination against independent operators as prohibited under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 present in the case where a manufacturer, by engaging an information service provider, opens a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan apply
Date: 2018-08-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, South Sudan, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2018284EN.01000501.xml










13.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/5






Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan apply
(2018/C 284/05)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of DG RELEX (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is DG RELEX 1C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG RELEX 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/735.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 13.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.