do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10592 – KKR / KÖRBER / KÖRBER SUPPLY CHAIN SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 104/04
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, robotics, software, supply chain, tobacco industry








C_2022104EN.01000401.xml










4.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10592 – KKR / KÖRBER / KÖRBER SUPPLY CHAIN SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 104/04)
On 25 February 2022, 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 32022M10592. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of Serhiy Vitaliyovich KURCHENKO subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities or bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine 2022/C 92/04
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022092EN.01001001.xml










25.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/10






Notice for the attention of Serhiy Vitaliyovich KURCHENKO subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities or bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine
(2022/C 92/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Serhiy Vitaliyovich KURCHENKO, subject to restrictive measures in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities or bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.
The Council intends to include the abovementioned person in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
The person concerned is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for his designation, by 4 March 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Case C-132/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2022 — BM, NP v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, free movement of workers, full-time employment, labour law, principle of proportionality, professional experience, teacher, temporary employment, work contract








C_2022207EN.01001801.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2022 — BM, NP v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
(Case C-132/22)
(2022/C 207/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BM, NP

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Question referred

Must Article 45(1) and (2) TFEU and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) be interpreted as precluding a rule, such as that laid down in Article 1(655) of Law No 205/2017, according to which, in order to take part in the procedure for inclusion on the lists compiled for the award of permanent and temporary teaching contracts in Italian AFAM institutions, professional experience gained by candidates at those national institutions alone is taken into account, and not experience gained at peer institutions in other European countries, given that the procedure in question is specifically intended to counter the phenomenon of precarious employment in Italy? If the Court of Justice does not hold the Italian legislation to be contrary, in abstract terms, to the European regulatory framework, can the measures envisaged by that legislation be regarded as proportionate, in concrete terms, in view of the abovementioned public-interest objective?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus 2022/C 92/02
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2022092EN.01000701.xml










25.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/7






Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus
(2022/C 92/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in the Annex I to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should continue to apply to those persons and entities. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 30 November 2022, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1 Global and Horizontal Affairs




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 8a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 46, 25.2.2022, p. 97.

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 46, 25.2.2022, p. 3.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10609 – EURAZEO / PSPIB / FST HOTELS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 115/04
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2022115EN.01000401.xml










11.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10609 – EURAZEO / PSPIB / FST HOTELS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 115/04)
On 25 February 2022, 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 32022M10609. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-139/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — AM and PM v mBank S.A.
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2022294EN.01001302.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — AM and PM v mBank S.A.
(Case C-139/22)
(2022/C 294/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: AM and PM

Defendant: mBank S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(1), Article 7(1) and (2), and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated to be regarded as unfair, it is sufficient to ascertain that the content of that contractual term corresponds to that of a provision of a standard contract which has been entered in the register of unfair terms?










2.


Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC … be interpreted as precluding a judicial body from interpreting national provisions in such a way that an unfair contractual term loses its unfair character if the consumer can choose to perform his or her obligations arising from the contract concerned on the basis of another term of that contract which is fair?










3.


Must Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC … be interpreted as meaning that a seller or supplier is required to inform each consumer of the essential characteristics of the contract and the risks associated with the contract, even if the consumer in question has relevant knowledge of the subject matter?










4.


Must Article 3(1), Article 6 […] and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC … be interpreted as meaning that, where more than one consumer concludes the same contract with a single seller or supplier, the same contractual terms may be regarded as unfair to the first consumer and fair to the second and, if so, may the consequence be that the contract is invalid as far as the first consumer is concerned and valid as far as the second consumer is concerned, such that he or she is subject to all the obligations arising from that contract?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-131/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2022 — flightright GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, bad weather, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2022191EN.01002001.xml










10.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2022 — flightright GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG
(Case C-131/22)
(2022/C 191/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Questions referred







1.


Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of their specific nature?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur?










3.


Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, irrespective of the reason for that decision?










4.


If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative, must the reason for the decision also be extraordinary, such that it need not be expected?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 February 2022 2022/C 89/02
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022089EN.01000201.xml










25.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 February 2022
(2022/C 89/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1163 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4405 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83463 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7338 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0320 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0878 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,090 




HUF


Hungarian forint


368,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6554 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9501 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,0525 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5593 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4316 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7178 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6692 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5125 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,70 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1634 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0601 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5520 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 074,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6896 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,450 




RUB


Russian rouble


95,7175 




THB


Thai baht


36,514 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,6874 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9355 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2960 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-104/22: Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, decision-making, operational programme








C_2022158EN.01001201.xml










11.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/12






Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-104/22)
(2022/C 158/15)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021 reviewing the objections raised by Hungary against disclosure, in relation to the confirmatory application GESTDEM 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from Hungary;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission granted partial public access to the documents requested by the applicant, even though the Hungarian authorities had expressly invoked the exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) and the Commission had accepted this in the present case until the confirmatory application was made.
The Hungarian government claims that the Commission’s interpretation in the contested decision is not only contrary to the Commission’s previous practice and the case-law of the Court of Justice, but is also seriously detrimental to cooperation between the Commission and the managing authorities of the Member States. The Hungarian government — in addition to arguing that there is decision-making of an EU institution in relation to the amendment of operational programmes, since the Commission approves those amendments, and that the exception in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is therefore applicable — submits that the particularity of the present procedure is that, under the system of shared management, the decision taken by the Member State is in fact subject to the strict supervision of the Commission. Although, formally, it is a decision of a Member State authority, the Commission has a demonstrable influence over it, and it is therefore all the more unacceptable that the exception in question does not protect such a decision. The exception laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is also intended to protect the decision-making of Member State authorities.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case C-140/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — SM, KM v mBank S.A.
Date: 2022-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, interest, limitation of legal proceedings, unfair terms of contract








C_2022284EN.01001401.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 February 2022 — SM, KM v mBank S.A.
(Case C-140/22)
(2022/C 284/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SM, KM

Defendant: mBank S.A.

Questions referred

Must Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation pursuant to which, in the case where a contract contains an unfair term without which it cannot be performed:






1.


the contract becomes definitively ineffective (invalid) retroactively from the time of its conclusion only after the consumer has made a declaration of intent that he or she does not consent to the unfair term remaining effective, is aware of the consequences of the invalidity of the contract and consents to the contract being invalidated;










2.


the limitation period for a seller or supplier’s claim for the return of undue payments under the contract begins to run only from the date on which the consumer made the declaration of intent referred to in point 1 above, even if the consumer had previously demanded payment from the seller or supplier and the seller or supplier could have been previously aware that the contract drawn up by it contained unfair terms;










3.


the consumer may demand payment of statutory interest for late payment only from the date on which he or she made the declaration of intent referred to in point 1 above, even if he or she had previously demanded payment from the seller or supplier;










4.


the consumer’s claim for the return of payments which he or she made under the invalid loan agreement (loan instalments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums) must be reduced by the equivalent of the interest on principal to which the bank would have been entitled if the loan agreement had been valid, whereas the bank can demand the return of the payments which it made under the same invalid loan agreement (loan principal) in full?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.