do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018324EN.01001101.xml










13.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 324/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 September 2018
(2018/C 324/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1585 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4594 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89028 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4740 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1277 




ISK


Iceland króna


132,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6328 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,590 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,73 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3099 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6380 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,3781 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6268 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5137 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0934 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7772 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5945 




KRW


South Korean won


1 307,37 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4368 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9588 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4350 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 174,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8037 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,640 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,1609 




THB


Thai baht


37,981 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7859 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1760 




INR


Indian rupee


83,6705 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-173/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 — Eligible costs — European Commission decision — Obligation to reimburse sums paid — Counter-claim)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, costing, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2018408EN.01001901.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/19






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission
(Case C-173/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))
(2018/C 408/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Joined Cases T-495/17 and T-496/17: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret v EUIPO (gratis) (EU trade mark — Applications for EU figurative marks gratis — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01006901.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/69






Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret v EUIPO (gratis)
(Joined Cases T-495/17 and T-496/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative marks gratis - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2018/C 427/92)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) authorised to replace Sedes Holding AȘ (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 (Cases R 506/2017-2 and R 507/2017-2) concerning the applications for registration of the figurative signs gratis as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the order







1.


The actions are dismissed.










2.


Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret AȘ shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case C-372/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 — Explanatory Notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 — Interpretation — Validity)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, recording equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2018408EN.01002601.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/26






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
(Case C-372/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 - Explanatory Notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))
(2018/C 408/33)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8525 80 30 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering a camera, such as the camera at issue in the main proceedings, that is capable of capturing a large number of photographic images per second and of storing them in its volatile internal memory — images that are deleted from that memory when the camera is switched off — and that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it is applicable by analogy to goods that have the characteristics of that camera, is invalid.


(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Case T-732/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, bank, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018392EN.01001401.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/14






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council
(Case T-732/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))
(2018/C 392/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose QC, M. Lester QC, J.-A. Fearns and P. Crowther, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J.P. Hix, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1148 of 28 June 2017 (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 35), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sberbank of Russia OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Case C-26/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Surface pattern)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, leather, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01001001.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-26/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Surface pattern))
(2018/C 408/10)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Birkenstock Sales GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Case C-287/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6(1) and (3) — Reimbursement of debt recovery costs — Costs resulting from reminders sent on account of late payment by a debtor)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, commercial transaction, company law, debt, legal expenses, payment








C_2018408EN.01002201.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/22






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.
(Case C-287/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6(1) and (3) - Reimbursement of debt recovery costs - Costs resulting from reminders sent on account of late payment by a debtor))
(2018/C 408/27)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as recognising that a creditor claiming compensation for the costs associated with sending reminders to a debtor due to the latter’s late payment is entitled to obtain reasonable compensation, on that basis and in addition to the fixed amount of EUR 40 laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive, for the purposes of Article 6(3) thereof, in respect of the part of those costs which exceeds that fixed amount.


(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case C-332/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Starman AS v Tarbijakaitseamet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 21 — Consumer contracts — Telephone communications — Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, regulation of telecommunications, telephone, telephone charges, unfair terms of contract








C_2018408EN.01002401.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/24






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Starman AS v Tarbijakaitseamet
(Case C-332/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Consumer contracts - Telephone communications - Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate))
(2018/C 408/30)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Starman AS

Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which, if a trader has made available to all its customers one or more speed dial numbers at a rate higher than the basic rate, consumers who have concluded a contract with the trader in question pay more than the basic rate when contacting that trader by telephone in relation to that contract.


(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-819/17: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — 2016 appraisal — Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, freedom of expression, promotion, staff assessment








C_2018427EN.01007701.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/77






Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO
(Case T-819/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2016 appraisal - Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report - Inadmissibility)
(2018/C 427/103)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU requesting that the General Court order EUIPO to delete from the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2016 all criticism concerning the applicant’s communication style, inasmuch as it constitutes a misrepresentation and infringes the applicant’s fundamental right to express ideas and opinions freely.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


WH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Case T-739/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, bank, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice








C_2018392EN.01001801.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/18






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council
(Case T-739/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))
(2018/C 392/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: J.M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
Case C-176/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej v Mariusz Wawrzosek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2008/48/EC — Order for payment procedure founded on a promissory note that secures the obligations arising from a consumer credit agreement)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, negotiable instrument, unfair terms of contract








C_2018408EN.01002001.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/20






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej v Mariusz Wawrzosek
(Case C-176/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2008/48/EC - Order for payment procedure founded on a promissory note that secures the obligations arising from a consumer credit agreement))
(2018/C 408/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej

Defendant: Mariusz Wawrzosek

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits issue of an order for payment founded on a valid promissory note that secures a claim arising from a consumer credit agreement, where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair, if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.


(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.