do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/771 of 21 January 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down specific criteria and conditions for the checks of documentary accounts in the framework of official controls in organic production and the official controls of groups of operators (Official Journal of the European Union L 165, 11 May 2021)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: agricultural product, agricultural production, consumer protection, food inspection, genetically modified organism, harmonisation of standards, labelling, organic farming, organic product, traceability








L_2021410EN.01019801.xml










18.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 410/198







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/771 of 21 January 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down specific criteria and conditions for the checks of documentary accounts in the framework of official controls in organic production and the official controls of groups of operators

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 165, 11 May 2021
)


On page 26, in Article 1(4), point (d):
for:






‘(d)


the information referred to in the first paragraph of point 2.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’,




read:






‘(d)


the information referred to in point 2.1.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’.
Case C-212/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.P., B.P. v ‘A.’ prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem ‘A.’ S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency — Contractual term relating to the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency — Requirement of intelligibility and transparency — Powers of the national court)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, floating rate, foreign currency, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2022024EN.01000502.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — M.P., B.P. v ‘A.’ prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem ‘A.’ S.A.
(Case C-212/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Contractual term relating to the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency - Requirement of intelligibility and transparency - Powers of the national court)
(2022/C 24/07)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: M.P., B.P.

Defendant:‘A.’ prowadzący działalność za pośrednictwem ‘A.’ S.A.

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the content of a clause of a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer that sets the buying and selling prices of a foreign currency to which the loan is indexed must enable a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to understand, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the way in which the foreign currency exchange rate used to calculate the amount of the repayment instalments is set, in order that that consumer is able to determine himself or herself, at any time, the exchange rate applied by the seller or supplier.










2.


Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the national court, which has found that a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, from interpreting that term in order to remedy its unfairness, even if that interpretation would correspond to the common intention of the parties to that contract.






(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Case C-680/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, jurisdiction, legal person








C_2022024EN.01000201.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/2






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-680/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)
(2022/C 24/02)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Fulmen (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Boquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case C-413/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 — Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew — Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I — Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence — Flying training — Instrument ground time — Calculation — Simulator training — Skill test — Principle of legal certainty — Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil aviation, crew, in-service training, principle of legal certainty, professional qualifications, simulation, technical specification, transport licence








C_2022024EN.01000801.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others
(Case C-413/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew - Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I - Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence - Flying training - Instrument ground time - Calculation - Simulator training - Skill test - Principle of legal certainty - Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)
(2022/C 24/10)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time;










2.


Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again.






(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union 2021/C 466 I/01
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, motor vehicle, safety device








CI2021466EN.01000101.xml










18.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 466/1






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2021/C 466 I/01)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 381:



8714 94 20   



Brakes





The following text is added after the first sentence:


‘These types of brakes are integrated into the hub.’


The following text is added after the existing text and images:


‘This subheading also includes “other brakes”, which are not integrated into the hub, such as rim brakes (caliper brakes, cantilever brakes, U – brakes, V – brakes etc.), disc brakes or so-called “roller brakes” (a special type of drum brakes which are designed to be connected to the wheel hub).’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.
Case C-107/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 52(4)(c) — Flat-rate financial corrections — Period of 24 months — Expenditure covered by that period — Method of calculating the correction — Adjustment of the correction rate)
Date: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, rural development








C_2022024EN.01000501.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
(Case C-107/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 52(4)(c) - Flat-rate financial corrections - Period of 24 months - Expenditure covered by that period - Method of calculating the correction - Adjustment of the correction rate)
(2022/C 24/06)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopolou and E.-E. Krompa, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020