do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 September 2021 2021/C 398/06
Date: 2021-10-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021398EN.01000701.xml










1.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 September 2021
(2021/C 398/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1579 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86053 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1683 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0830 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1650 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,495 




HUF


Hungarian forint


360,19 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6197 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9475 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2981 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6095 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4750 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0184 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6858 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5760 




KRW


South Korean won


1 371,58 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5629 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4847 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4889 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 572,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8475 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,066 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,3391 




THB


Thai baht


39,235 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2631 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7439 




INR


Indian rupee


86,0766 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-619/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by Cora against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2021 in Case T-500/19, Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)
Date: 2021-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2022064EN.01001102.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/11






Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by Cora against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2021 in Case T-500/19, Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)
(Case C-619/21 P)
(2022/C 64/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Cora (represented by: M. Georges-Picot, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Coravin, Inc. and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 13 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 398/10
Date: 2021-10-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, Midi-Pyrenées, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2021398EN.01001501.xml










1.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/15






Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 398/10)






Member State


France




Route concerned


Tarbes – Paris (Orly)




Period of validity of the contract


From 1 June 2022 to 31 May 2026




Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders


1 December 2021 (12.00, Paris time)




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Syndicat mixte PYRÉNIA




Bâtiment Pic du Midi




Aéroport Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées




65290 Juillan




FRANCE




Tel. +33 0562325651
Email: syndicat.mixte@pyrenia.fr
Buyer profile (website): www.marches-publics.info
Case C-613/21 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-670/19, Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament
Date: 2021-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional experience








C_2022037EN.01001001.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/10






Appeal brought on 1 October 2021 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-670/19, Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament
(Case C-613/21 P)
(2022/C 37/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Terwinghe, C. González Argüelles, R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero

Form of order sought

The appellant claims, principally, that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


reserve the costs.




The appellant claims, in the alternative, that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of 14 July 2021 of the General Court in Case T-670/19;










—


dismiss the action brought at first instance;










—


order Mr Carbajo Ferrero to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal is based on, first, errors of law relating to the interpretation of the decision laying down the stages of the selection procedure of senior officials of 16 May 2020, as amended by the decision of the Bureau of 18 February 2008, and the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and transparency and, second, a distortion of the facts. The Parliament submits that the General Court erred in finding that the procedure for the appointment of the Director for Media of the Directorate-General for Communication was carried out in an improper manner, in that the Advisory Committee for the appointment of senior officials failed to use the same criteria for the comparative analysis of merits throughout the procedure.
By the second ground based on an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, the Parliament claims that the General Court misconstrued the function of the report on the interviews, compiled by the Advisory Committee, and erred in finding that the Appointing Authority did not correctly take account of the professional experience of the appellant.