do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018395EN.01000201.xml










31.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 October 2018
(2018/C 395/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1372 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4614 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89148 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4200 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1386 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5435 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,870 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,95 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3307 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6670 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2613 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6025 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4941 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9229 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7349 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5739 




KRW


South Korean won


1 295,91 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6291 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9203 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4315 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 301,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7558 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,862 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,6963 




THB


Thai baht


37,880 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2282 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,7513 




INR


Indian rupee


83,7280 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-681/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2018 — JH v KG
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employment service, temporary employment, temporary employment agency, work contract








C_2019035EN.01000902.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2018 — JH v KG
(Case C-681/18)
(2019/C 35/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JH

Defendant: KG

Question referred

Must Article 5(5) of Directive 2008/104/EC (1) of 19 November 2008 be interpreted as precluding the application of Legislative Decree No 276/2003, as amended by Decree Law 34/2014, which: (a) does not place limits on successive assignments of the same worker to the same user undertaking; (b) does not require that, in order for the use of fixed-term supply work to be lawful, there must be technical, production, organisational or replacement reasons for having recourse to such supply work; (c) does not provide that, in order for the use of such a form of employment contract to be lawful, the production requirement of the user undertaking must be temporary in nature?


(1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control, metalworking, vehicle parts








C_2018395EN.01000101.xml










31.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/1






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 395/01)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 17 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Spirit and Asco. On 25 October 2018, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.
Case T-658/18: Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, furniture industry, marketing, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01004601.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/46






Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)
(Case T-658/18)
(2019/C 25/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson and R. Wessman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in colours blue and white (Representation of a pattern of squares) — Application for registration No 1 340 047

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 442/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the Board of Appeal has not made a proper examination, and/or has failed to state the reasons for its decision in relation to the different goods and services applied for;










—


Infringement of Article 94, Article 95 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the subject trade mark is not a repeated pattern or a three-dimensional mark;










—


Erroneous assessment of the relevant underlying public interest constituting infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council since the Board of Appeal has made an incorrect assessment as regards inherent distinctiveness.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_2018395EN.01002201.xml










31.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/22






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 395/06)

1.   
On 23 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:






—


Aperam SA (‘Aperam’, Luxembourg), and










—


VDM Metals Holding GmbH (‘VDM’, Germany).




Aperam acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole VDM. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Aperam is a global player in stainless, electrical and specialty steel, also active in the production and sale of nickel alloys and corrosion resistance materials.










—


VDM is a global producer of high-performance materials consisting of nickel and nickel alloys, special stainless steels, zirconium and cobalt-based alloys.






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.8907 — Aperam/VDM
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 T-653/18: Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01004301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/43






Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)
(Case T-653/18)
(2019/C 25/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 826 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2462/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9108 — PepsiCo/SodaStream International) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, household article, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage, syrup








C_2018395EN.01002301.xml










31.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/23






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9108 — PepsiCo/SodaStream International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 395/07)

1.   
On 24 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:






—


PepsiCo Inc. (‘PepsiCo’, US),










—


SodaStream International Ltd (‘SodaStream International’, Israel)




PepsiCo acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of SodaStream International.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for PepsiCo: production and distribution of bottled and canned carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks for consumers, production and commercialization of a consumer solution for flavoured water, production and commercialization of industrial concentrates and syrups for use for hotels, restaurants and catering services, of snack and dairy products,
—   for SodaStream International: manufacturing and commercialization of home carbonation systems that enable consumers to transform tap water into sparkling water and flavoured sparkling water, including home carbonation systems as well as carbonation bottles, CO2 cylinders and cylinder refilling services, dilutable concentrates, syrups and flavours.


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.9108 — PepsiCo/SodaStream International
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 193/01
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control








C_2021193EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 193/01)
On 31 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 32018M9099. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-654/18: Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (le Sac 11)
Date: 2018-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01004401.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/44






Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (le Sac 11)
(Case T-654/18)
(2019/C 25/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 612 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2464/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.