do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018391EN.01000101.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 October 2018
(2018/C 391/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1345 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4607 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88680 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4025 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1367 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5160 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,860 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3177 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6606 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3949 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6142 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4916 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8950 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7535 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5705 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,16 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6992 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8801 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4325 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 252,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7498 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,877 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,7073 




THB


Thai baht


37,569 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2125 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1824 




INR


Indian rupee


83,3400 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-672/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — DN v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, capital gains tax, securities, tax relief








C_2019025EN.01002302.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — DN v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
(Case C-672/18)
(2019/C 25/29)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DN

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Article 8 of the Directive of 19 October 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding different bases of assessment and rate rules being used to tax the capital gain arising on a transfer of securities received in exchange and the deferred capital gain?










2.


Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired?






(1)  Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9075 — Continental/CITC/JHTD/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, holding company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2018407EN.01000201.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 407/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9075 — Continental/CITC/JHTD/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 407/03)
On 29 October 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 32018M9075. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-643/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, chemical product, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019016EN.01005201.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/52






Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)
(Case T-643/18)
(2019/C 16/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DermoFaes — Application for registration No 15 069 289

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 in Case R 1842/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;










—


order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, telecommunications, television








C_2018391EN.01000301.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 391/03)

1.   
On 19 October 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:






—


Vodafone Group Plc (‘Vodafone’, the United Kingdom),










—


UPC Česká republika, s.r.o. (‘UPC CZ’, the Czech Republic), Unitymedia GmbH (‘Unitymedia’, Germany), UPC Magyarország Kft (‘UPC HU’, Hungary), and UPC Romania S.R.L. (‘UPC RO’, Romania), belonging to the Liberty Global plc group.




Vodafone acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of UPC CZ, Unitymedia, UPC HU and UPC RO.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Vodafone: provider of mobile telecommunications services, and in certain countries, provider of fixed voice, fixed broadband, and retail television services,
—   for UPC CZ, Unitymedia, UPC HU, and UPC RO: providers of fixed voice, fixed broadband, and retail television services in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Romania. In Germany and Hungary, provider of mobile telecommunications services.


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.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets
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’).
Case C-670/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 29 October 2018 — CO v Comune di Gesturi
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allocation of work, consultancy, equal treatment, public authorities, retired person








C_2019025EN.01002301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy) lodged on 29 October 2018 — CO v Comune di Gesturi
(Case C-670/18)
(2019/C 25/28)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CO

Defendant: Comune di Gesturi

Question referred

Does the principle of non-discrimination referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 preclude the provision in Article 5(9) of Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012 (converted, with amendments, by Law No 135 of 7 August 2012, in the version of the text amended by Article 6 of Decree-Law No 90 of 24 June 2014, converted by Law No 114 of 11 August 2014), prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to individuals who are already retired public or private employees?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9091 — SNAM/SGI/Sardinia Newco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, financial services, gas industry, gas pipeline, gas supply, joint venture, merger control








C_2019123EN.01000401.xml










2.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9091 — SNAM/SGI/Sardinia Newco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 123/07)
On 29 October 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 32018M9091. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-650/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, consultancy, data processing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019016EN.01005602.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/56






Action brought on 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)
(Case T-650/18)
(2019/C 16/67)
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the word mark REAKTOR as a European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 13 752 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal;





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-644/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopiderm)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, fertiliser, pharmaceutical product, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019004EN.01003701.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/37






Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopiderm)
(Case T-644/18)
(2019/C 4/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DermoFaes Atopiderm — Application for registration No 15 069 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 1305/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;










—


order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ L 150, 14.6.2018)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, consumer protection, food inspection, genetically modified organism, harmonisation of standards, labelling, organic farming, organic product








L_2018270EN.01003701.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 270/37







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 150 of 14 June 2018
)


On page 54, Article 54(2), first sentence:
for:

               ‘The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 2(6), Article 9(11), Article 10(5), Article 12(2), Article 13(3), Article 14(2), Article 15(2), Article 16(2), Article 17(2), Article 18(2), Article 19(2), Article 21(1), Article 22(1), Article 23(2), Article 24(6), Article 30(7), Article 32(4), Article 33(6), Article 34(8), Article 35(9), Article 36(3), Article 38(8), Article 40(11), Article 44(2), Article 46(7), Article 48(4), Article 53(2), (3) and (4), Article 57(3) and Article 58(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 1 January 2021.’,
read:

               ‘The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 2(6), Article 9(11), Article 10(5), Article 12(2), Article 13(3), Article 14(2), Article 15(2), Article 16(2), Article 17(2), Article 18(2), Article 19(2), Article 21(1), Article 22(1), Article 23(2), Article 24(6), Article 30(7), Article 32(4), Article 33(6), Article 34(8), Article 35(9), Article 36(3), Article 38(8), Article 40(11), Article 44(2), Article 46(7), Article 48(4), Article 53(2), (3) and (4), Article 57(3) and Article 58(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from 17 June 2018.’.
Case T-642/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopimed)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, fertiliser, pharmaceutical product, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019004EN.01003601.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/36






Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopimed)
(Case T-642/18)
(2019/C 4/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DermoFaes Atopimed — Application for registration No 15 069 396

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 1365/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;










—


order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Special Report No 24/2018 — ‘Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the past decade’
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU energy policy, carbon capture and storage, climate change policy, environmental protection, innovation, pollution control, renewable energy








C_2018391EN.01000201.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/2






Special Report No 24/2018
‘Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the past decade’
(2018/C 391/02)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 24/2018 ‘Demonstrating carbon capture and storage and innovative renewables at commercial scale in the EU: intended progress not achieved in the past decade’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu.
Case T-649/18: Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, provision of services, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019004EN.01003801.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/38






Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)
(Case T-649/18)
(2019/C 4/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark transparent pairing — Application for registration No 16 581 118

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 2487/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to state reasons in the contested decision;










—


Incorrect substantive interpretation of the sign applied for.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9019 — Mars/AniCura) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 347/03
Date: 2018-10-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: animal nutrition, economic concentration, merger control, veterinary medicine








C_2019347EN.01000301.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9019 — Mars/AniCura)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 347/03)
On 29 October 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32018M9019. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.