do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018327EN.01000301.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 September 2018
(2018/C 327/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1689 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,75 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4596 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89228 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5460 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1274 




ISK


Iceland króna


128,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6245 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,473 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3049 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6467 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,1474 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6260 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5206 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1725 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7778 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6012 




KRW


South Korean won


1 307,93 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3338 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0120 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4333 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 305,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8375 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,179 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,2016 




THB


Thai baht


38,071 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,8921 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9805 




INR


Indian rupee


83,9460 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-543/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2018399EN.01005201.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/52






Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission
(Case T-543/18)
(2018/C 399/66)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: XK (represented by N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare and order that the individual decision to cease to grant reimbursement of the education costs connected with the applicant’s children as from the 2017/18 school year, put into effect for the first time via the applicant’s salary statement of November 2017, with reasons given in an email of 7 November 2017, is annulled;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the defendant’s changed interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of sound administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure effectively to weigh up interests and failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, by which the contested decision is vitiated.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, plastics








C_2018327EN.01001201.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/12






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2018/C 327/08)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 185, in the explanatory note to CN subheading ‘3906 90 90 Other’ the first sentence is replaced by the following text:


‘This subheading includes poly(acrylonitrile) and polyacrylic elastomers (ACM) in primary forms (non-vulcanised).’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Case C-542/18 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, appointment of members, enforcement of ruling, judge, legality, member of the Court of Justice (EU), principle of legal certainty, right to justice








C_2018427EN.01001201.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/12






Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council
(Case C-542/18 RX)
(2018/C 427/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court


Applicant: Erik Simpson (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Questions to be reviewed

Whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council, affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.
Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 — Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, civil liability proceedings, competition policy, damages, fine, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, offence, preliminary ruling procedure, restriction on competition








C_2018459EN.01004701.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/47






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 17 September 2018
in Case E-10/17
Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS

(Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

(2018/C 459/16)
In Case E-10/17, Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in the context of national rules on the limitation period for claims for damages in cases where fines have been imposed under Articles 53 and 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 17 September 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The principle of equivalence requires that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly to an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority imposing a fine, in so far as those actions have a similar purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics.










2.


The principle of effectiveness does not restrict the EEA States’ right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before the EFTA Surveillance Authority has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party, as long as the application of such a limitation period does not make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring an action for damages for infringement of EEA competition rules. That assessment must take into account the special characteristics of competition cases.
Case C-543/18 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, appointment of members, enforcement of ruling, judge, legality, member of the Court of Justice (EU), principle of legal certainty, right to justice








C_2018427EN.01001202.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/12






Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission

(Case C-543/18 RX)
(2018/C 427/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court


Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T 693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F 149/15, EU:F:2016:155), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.
Case T-542/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, education, electronic device, film industry, publishing, registered trade mark, satellite navigation, signalling device, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01005101.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/51






Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)
(Case T-542/18)
(2018/C 399/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark wanda films — Application for registration No 13 902 994

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 829/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);










—


override the contested decision;










—


issue a decision that admits the registration of the figurative trademark defended by the applicant with the present application.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, fuel








C_2018327EN.01001101.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/11






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2018/C 327/07)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 116, in the explanatory note to ‘Note 2’ the existing text is renumbered as 1 and the following text is added:








‘2.


The expression “similar oils” includes, among others, the following mixtures of hydrocarbons:






—


synthetic paraffinic diesel fuels, in particular “Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils” (HVO) and “Gas to Liquid Fuels”,










—


products from renewable sources resulting from the following processes: “Biomass to Liquid Fuels” or “Biogas to Liquid Fuels”,










—


products from the co-processing of renewable feedstock at refineries with petroleum feedstock.




The following definitions as regards the production of “similar oils” apply:






—


“Hydrotreating” means the thermochemical conversion of triglycerides with hydrogen to produce alkanes; it refers to fuel processing. Sources for triglycerides are, in general, fats and oils, suitable waste, residue fat fractions and fat originating from algae.










—


“Gas to Liquid Fuels”, “Biomass to Liquid Fuels” and “Biogas to Liquid Fuels” mean the conversion of gas into liquid fuels by the Fischer-Tropsch process or equivalent processes. In the case of “Biomass to Liquid Fuels” there is a prior step, converting the biomass into gas.’











(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9019 — Mars/AniCura) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal nutrition, economic concentration, merger control, veterinary medicine








C_2018327EN.01001601.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9019 — Mars/AniCura)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 327/11)

1.   
On 10 September 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:






—


Mars, Incorporated (United States),










—


AniCura TC AB (Sweden).




Mars, Incorporated (‘Mars’) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AniCura TC AB (‘AniCura’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Mars is a global company, headquartered in the United States, active in several business segments, including pet care. Mars' petcare segment, headquartered in Belgium, is a pet food and veterinary care provider. Mars is active in the EEA in the manufacture and provision of pet food,










—


AniCura is a provider of veterinary care for companion animals (primarily dogs and cats). AniCura is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and operates animal hospitals and clinics across several countries in the EEA (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy). AniCura is also active in the sales of ancillary products, including pet food, through its animal hospitals and clinics.






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.9019 — Mars/AniCura
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’).
Corrigendum to Decision No 2/2016 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121] (OJ L 23, 29.1.2016)
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: EU–Switzerland Joint Committee
Subjects: Switzerland, administrative cooperation, agreement (EU), originating product, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2018232EN.01000401.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 232/4







Corrigendum to Decision No 2/2016 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 29 January 2016
)


On the cover page and in the title on page 79:
for:


                        ‘Decision No 2/2016 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]’,

read:


                        ‘Decision No 2/2015 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]’.
Case C-579/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, civil liability, customs debt, customs fraud, customs territory (EU), import (EU)








C_2018427EN.01001702.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12
(Case C-579/18)
(2018/C 427/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants and respondents: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

Defendants and appellants: QC, Comida paralela 12

Question referred

Does Article 79 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the EU Customs Code (1) preclude national legislation, such as that implemented by Article 266 of the General Law of 18 July 1977 on customs and excise duties, in the case of the unlawful importation into the customs territory of the European Union of goods subject to import duties, from making the person civilly liable for the person who has committed that offence — in which the person civilly liable did not participate — jointly and severally liable for the customs debt?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9024 — Abry Partners/Link) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, electronic mail, information service, investment company, mass media, merger control, mobile communication, mobile phone








C_2018338EN.01000702.xml










21.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9024 — Abry Partners/Link)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 338/03)
On 17 September 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 32018M9024. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.