do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates – 28 August 2024
Date: 2024-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202404817EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4817


29.8.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            28 August 2024
         
(C/2024/4817)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1117 




JPY


Japanese yen


160,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4593 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84163 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3350 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9375 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7120 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,053 




HUF


Hungarian forint


393,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3003 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9773 




TRY


Turkish lira


37,8389 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6407 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4982 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6711 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7823 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4493 




KRW


South Korean won


1 485,05 




ZAR


South African rand


19,7851 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9253 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 150,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8281 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,544 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,848 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1498 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8823 




INR


Indian rupee


93,3565 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4817/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2024-08-29
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, dissemination of information, mass media, pluralism in the media








C_202405337EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5337


29.8.2024






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(C/2024/5337)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


8 May 2024




Case No


91919




Decision No


069/2024/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


 




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Grant scheme for local broadcasting




Legal basis


Regulation of 19 February 2016 No 166 on grants to local broadcasting




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Media pluralism, freedom of speech, and to strengthen the democratic function of local broadcasting




Form of aid


Grant




Budget


NOK 23 million annually




Intensity


80 %




Duration


Until 31 December 2029




Economic sectors


Media




Name and address of the granting authority







The Norwegian Media Authority




Nygata 4




1607 Fredrikstad




NORWAY








Other information


 




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5337/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-577/24 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2024 by Peikko Group Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2024 in Case T-192/23, Peikko Group v EUIPO – Anstar
Date: 2024-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, metal product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202501069EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1069


24.2.2025






Appeal brought on 29 August 2024 by Peikko Group Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2024 in Case T-192/23, Peikko Group v EUIPO – Anstar


(Case C-577/24 P)

(C/2025/1069)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Peikko Group Oy (represented by: P. Eskola, asianajaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Anstar Oy
By order of 8 January 2025, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Peikko Group Oy should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1069/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-450/24: Action brought on 29 August 2024 – EZ v Commission
Date: 2024-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, termination of employment, work contract








C_202406107EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6107


21.10.2024






Action brought on 29 August 2024 – EZ v Commission


(Case T-450/24)

(C/2024/6107)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EZ (represented by: K. Djaber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the current action admissible and founded;










—


annul the defendant’s decision of 25 October 2023 not renewing the applicant’s employment contract;










—


and, so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 29 May 2024 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against a decision of 25 October 2023;










—


grant the reinstatement of the applicant; alternatively,










—


grant compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant in the amount of EUR 48 697,88; alternatively,










—


grant compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of a serious chance of having his work contract renewed; and










—


grant compensation for the non-material harm, as evaluated ex æquo et bono at EUR 10 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the grounds relied on in the contested decision and in the decision not to renew the contract, which are unfounded.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, on the ground that the defendant did not balance the interest of the service against the interest of the staff member.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6107/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)