do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 30 November 2021 concerning a draft ordinary decision relating to Case AT.40135 – FOREX (Sterling Lads) Rapporteur: Portugal 2022/C 185/06
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Group of Ten, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange transaction, foreign exchange market, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), spot market, trade information








C_2022185EN.01005501.xml










6.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/55






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 30 November 2021 concerning a draft ordinary decision relating to Case AT.40135 – FOREX (Sterling Lads)
Rapporteur: Portugal
(2022/C 185/06)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft ordinary decision (i.e. information exchanges) constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertaking concerned by the draft ordinary decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft ordinary decision.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft ordinary decision.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-710/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 — Roos and Others v Parliament (Interim relief — Members of the European Parliament — Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency)
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, coronavirus disease, disease prevention, epidemic, equal treatment, health certificate, health control, protection of privacy, public building








C_2022073EN.01004601.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/46






Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 — Roos and Others v Parliament
(Case T-710/21 R)
(Interim relief - Members of the European Parliament - Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency)
(2022/C 73/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Robert Roos (Poortugaal, Netherlands), Anne-Sophie Pelletier (Ixelles, Belgium), Francesca Donato (Palermo, Italy), Virginie Joron (Durningen, France) and IC (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed,










2.


The order of 5 November 2021, Roos and Others v Parliament (T-710/21 R) is revoked.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Opinionof the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positionsat its meeting on 30 November 2021concerning a draft settlement decision relating toCase COMP/AT.40135 – FOREX (Sterling Lads) Rapporteur: Portugal (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 185/03
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, Group of Ten, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange transaction, foreign exchange market, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), spot market, trade information








C_2022185EN.01004701.xml










6.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/47






Opinionof the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positionsat its meeting on 30 November 2021concerning a draft settlement decision relating toCase COMP/AT.40135 – FOREX (Sterling Lads) Rapporteur: Portugal
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 185/03)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft settlement decision (i.e. information exchanges, standing down and the underlying understanding) constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft settlement decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft settlement decision.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft settlement decision with the exception of the immunity applicant.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.



7.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the determination of the basic amounts of the fines and the overlap corrections applied.



8.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and the 2008 Settlement Notice.



9.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.



10.   

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) 2021/C 482/04
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: The Member States
Subjects: France, Occitanie, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, local authority, regional authority, regional cooperation, regional development








C_2021482EN.01000401.xml










30.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/4






Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
(2021/C 482/04)
I.   Name of the EGTC, address and contact point (as it is currently in the EGTC register)
Registered name: EGTC Pyrénées Méditerranée
Registered office: 15 rue Rivals, 31000 Toulouse, France
Person responsible (Director): Xavier BERNARD SANS
Email: xavier.bernardsans@euroregio-epm.eu
Internet address of the Grouping: www.euroregio.eu
II.   Modifications concerning the name, director, registered office, internet address of the EGTC

Modification of the official name: Eurorégion Pyrénées Méditerranée
Modification of the address of the registered office: 35 boulevard Saint Assiscle, CS 32032, 66011 Perpignan Cedex, France
III.   New members

Official name: Région Occitanie (following the merger of the Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon regions)
Postal Address: Hôtel de région de Toulouse: 22 boulevard du Maréchal Juin, 31406 Toulouse Cedex 9, and Hôtel de région de Montpellier: 201 avenue de la Pompignane, 34064 Montpellier Cedex 02
Internet address: www.laregion.fr
Type of member: Region
Country: France
IV.   Members who left the grouping

Official name: Région Midi-Pyrénées (following the merger with the Languedoc-Roussillon region)
Postal Adress: Hôtel de région Midi-Pyrénées, 22 boulevard du Maréchal Juin, 31406 Toulouse
Cedex 9
Type of member: Region
Country: France
Official name: Région Languedoc-Roussillon(following the merger with the Midi-Pyrénées region)
Postal Adress: Hôtel de région Languedoc-Roussillon, 201 avenue de la Pompignane, 34064 Montpellier Cedex 02
Type of member: Region
Country: France_____________
Case C-726/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — Criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge, criminal proceedings, general legal principle, ruling








C_2022064EN.01002301.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — Criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation
(Case C-726/21)
(2022/C 64/35)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings

GR, HS, IT, INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation

Question referred

In assessing whether there has been an infringement of the ne bis in idem principle, is it possible to compare only the facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Puli-Pola (Pula Public Prosecutor’s Office, Croatia) of 28 September 2015 with the key facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office, Austria) of 9 January 2015, and in the operative part of the judgment of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court) of 3 November 2016, upheld by judgment of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria) of 4 March 2019, or is it possible to compare the facts cited in the enacting terms of the indictment of the Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Puli-Pola (Pula Public Prosecutor’s Office) with the facts cited in the grounds of the judgment of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court) of 3 November 2016, upheld by judgment of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria), and which were the subject of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office) against several persons, in particular against GR and HS, and which were subsequently omitted from the indictment by the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office) of 9 January 2015 (and were not cited in those enacting terms)?
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2082 of 26 November 2021 laying down the arrangements for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the common European risk classification scheme (Official Journal of the European Union L 426 of 29 November 2021)
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: accident prevention, air safety, civil aviation, classification, disaster resilience, disclosure of information, exchange of information, information system, transport accident








L_2021427EN.01019601.xml










30.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 427/196







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2082 of 26 November 2021 laying down the arrangements for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the common European risk classification scheme

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 426 of 29 November 2021
)


On page 37, section 1.2., point e., first indent:
for:






‘—


Occurrence reports that have a RAT “ATM overall” severity score classification can be mapped directly to the ERCS probability columns as explained in step (g) of Figure 2,’,




read:






‘—


Occurrence reports that have a RAT “ATM overall” severity score classification can be mapped directly to the ERCS probability columns as explained in step (g) of Figure 1,’.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation 2021/C 482/03
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: San Marino, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2021482EN.01000301.xml










30.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/3






New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2021/C 482/03)






National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Republic of San Marino

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: The Republic of San Marino

Subject of commemoration: The 450th anniversary of the birth of Caravaggio

Description of the design: The design depicts the penitent Magdalene, detail of the homonymous work by Caravaggio, kept at the Doria Pamphilj Gallery in Rome. At the top left is the inscription ‘SAN MARINO’, and underneath are the dates ‘1571-2021’. At the left are the initials of the author Silvia Petrassi, ‘SP’. At the top right are the inscription ‘CARAVAGGIO’ and the mintmark.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 54 000

Date of issue: 1 March 2021


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-727/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, higher court, right to justice, ruling








C_2022222EN.01000802.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB
(Case C-727/21)
(2022/C 222/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB

Questions referred







1.


Is the rule laid down in the second part of the first sentence and in the second sentence of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of the Courts, Narodne novine, br. 37/14, 49/14, 8/15, 35/15, 123/15, 45/16, 29/17, 33/17, 34/17, 57/17, 101/18, 119/18, 81/19, 128/19, 39/20 and 47/20), which provides that ‘a case before a court of second instance shall be deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent from the court office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. The Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified within a further period of eight days’, to be considered compatible with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










2.


Is Article 40(2) of the Zakon o sudovima (Law on judicial bodies), which provides that ‘the legal position adopted at the meeting of all the judges or of a section of the Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske (Supreme Court, Croatia), of the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Commercial Court of Appeal, Croatia), of the Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske (Administrative Court of Appeal, Croatia), of the Visoki kazneni sud Republike Hrvatske (Criminal Court of Appeal, Croatia), du Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske (Higher Misdemeanour Court, Croatia) and of the meeting of a section of a Županijski sud (County Court, Croatia) shall be binding on all the chambers or judges at second instance of that section or court’ compatible with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?