do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10470 – SWISS LIFE HOLDING / VAUBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS / AVES ONE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 451/01
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, life assurance, merger control, pension scheme, vehicle on rails








C_2021451EN.01000101.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10470 – SWISS LIFE HOLDING / VAUBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS / AVES ONE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 451/01)
On 21 October 2021, 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 policy’ 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 32021M10470. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-583/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Fight against fraud — Declaration obligation relating to the transport of goods — Road freight electronic monitoring system — Penalty regime applicable to high-risk taxpayers — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, penalty, principle of proportionality, road transport, tax law, tax offence, taxpayer








C_2022064EN.01000301.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/3






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-583/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Fight against fraud - Declaration obligation relating to the transport of goods - Road freight electronic monitoring system - Penalty regime applicable to high-risk taxpayers - Proportionality)
(2022/C 64/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which taxpayers classified as ‘high-risk taxpayers’, within the meaning of national law, are required to pay a fine intended to penalise irregularities in shipment of goods declarations, the amount of which cannot in any circumstances be less than 30 % of 40 % of the value of the goods.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 October 2021 2021/C 426/03
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021426EN.01000501.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 October 2021
(2021/C 426/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1623 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,78 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4404 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84503 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0150 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0739 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7435 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,519 




HUF


Hungarian forint


361,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5850 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9487 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,7821 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5528 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4349 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0375 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6219 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5629 




KRW


South Korean won


1 364,31 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8307 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4302 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5092 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 404,06 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8369 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,972 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,5141 




THB


Thai baht


38,774 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4830 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4814 




INR


Indian rupee


87,0086 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-402/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock — Palm oil — Action for annulment — Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, biofuel, energy crop, land use, renewable energy, renewable resources, vegetable oil








C_2021513EN.01001302.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission
(Case C-402/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 - Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock - Palm oil - Action for annulment - Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 513/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lípidos Santiga SA (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Lípidos Santiga SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10390 – CHRISTIAN BURRUS/OTPP/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 434/01
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial management, insurance, merger control, pension fund








C_2021434EN.01000101.xml










27.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10390 – CHRISTIAN BURRUS/OTPP/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 434/01)
On 21 October 2021, 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 French 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 policy’ 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 32021M10390. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration Case M.10481 – SILVER LAKE / BV / CLUBESSENTIAL HOLDINGS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 451/03
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2021451EN.01000301.xml










8.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
Case M.10481 – SILVER LAKE / BV / CLUBESSENTIAL HOLDINGS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 451/03)
On 21 October 2021, 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 policy’ 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 32021M10481. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10347 – SYNTHOS / TRINSEO (SYNTHETIC RUBBER BUSINESS)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 407/01
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, company with share capital, economic concentration, merger control








C_2022407EN.01000101.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 407/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10347 – SYNTHOS / TRINSEO (SYNTHETIC RUBBER BUSINESS))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 407/01)
On 21 October 2021, 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 policy’ 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 32021M10347. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-393/20: Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber), 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie, Poland) — T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Article 11(1)(b) — Article 12 — Article 13(2) — Scope ratione personae — Concept of ‘injured party’ — Professional — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(2))
Date: 2021-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, insurance claim, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, motor vehicle insurance, transport accident








C_2021513EN.01001201.xml










20.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 513/12






Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber), 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie, Poland) — T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o. v G. I. A/S
(Case C-393/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 11(1)(b) - Article 12 - Article 13(2) - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Professional - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(2))
(2021/C 513/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Śródmieścia w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: T.B. and D. sp. z. o. o.

Defendant: G. I. A/S

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by a company that, in consideration for services that it provided to a party directly injured in a road accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies and who brought an action, in the court for the place where it is established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party responsible for that accident.










2.


Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a professional who acquired, under an assignment agreement, a claim from a party injured in a road accident in order to bring a civil-liability action before a court of the Member State in which the accident occurred against the insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in a Member State other than the Member State in which the accident occurred, provided that the conditions for the application of this provision are met, which it is for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.