do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-200/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2022 — Vantage Logistics S.R.L. v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba, Auto Help Alba S.R.L., Banca Transilvania S.A., BRD — Groupe Société Générale S.A., S.C. Croma S.R.L., S.C. Polaris M.Holding, S.C. Elit România Piese Auto Originale S.R.L., S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L., CH Insolvency I.P.U.R.L. as court-appointed liquidator of S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L.
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, industrial reorganisation, ownership, primacy of EU law








C_2022222EN.01001801.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2022 — Vantage Logistics S.R.L. v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba, Auto Help Alba S.R.L., Banca Transilvania S.A., BRD — Groupe Société Générale S.A., S.C. Croma S.R.L., S.C. Polaris M.Holding, S.C. Elit România Piese Auto Originale S.R.L., S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L., CH Insolvency I.P.U.R.L. as court-appointed liquidator of S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L.
(Case C-200/22)
(2022/C 222/29)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vantage Logistics S.R.L

The other parties to the proceedings: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba, Auto Help Alba S.R.L, Banca Transilvania S.A., BRD — Groupe Société Générale S.A., S.C. Croma S.R.L., S.C. Polaris M.Holding, S.C. Elit România Piese Auto Originale S.R.L., S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L., CH Insolvency I.P.U.R.L. as court-appointed liquidator of S.C. Nedo Auto Service S.R.L.

Question referred

Can EU law, the principle of respect for, and protection of, the right to private property derived from Article 17 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law and, in particular, the first sentence of Article 9(6) of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency), (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 139(1) [point] (C) of Law No 85/2014], which, in the context of insolvency proceedings, [allows] the reorganisation/restructuring plan to be deemed to have been accepted if, where there are two or four categories of claims, at least half the number of categories votes in favour of it, provided that one of the disadvantaged categories accepts the plan and at least 30 % of the total, by value, of the general body of creditors accepts that same plan?


(1)  OJ 2019 L 172, p. 18.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 March 2022 2022/C 118/04
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022118EN.01000601.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 March 2022
(2022/C 118/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0990 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4402 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83970 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6460 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0230 




ISK


Iceland króna


144,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8033 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,213 




HUF


Hungarian forint


380,92 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7820 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9490 




TRY


Turkish lira


16,2554 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5017 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4024 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6007 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6053 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4949 




KRW


South Korean won


1 354,04 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4896 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9633 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5713 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 696,64 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6098 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,461 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,542 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5077 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9524 




INR


Indian rupee


83,9875 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 14 March 2022 in the case of Stendi AS & Norlandia Care Norge AS v Oslo kommune v/ordføreren (Case E-4/22) 2022/C 345/04
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, award of contract, health care, non-profit organisation, provision of services, public procurement, services contract, social services, tendering








C_2022345EN.01000501.xml










8.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/5






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 14 March 2022 in the case of Stendi AS & Norlandia Care Norge AS v Oslo kommune v/ordføreren
(Case E-4/22)
(2022/C 345/04)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 14 March 2022, from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Stendi AS & Norlandia Care Norge AS v Oslo kommune v/ordføreren, on the following questions:
On whether the procurement comes within or falls outside the concept of service:






1.


Is a contract for pecuniary interest providing for the provision of long-term places in nursing homes, the procurement of which is effected under the conditions described [in the request], to be regarded as a contract relating to the provision of ‘services’ under point (9) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU?




On the exception in Article 32 EEA for exercise of official authority:






1.


Is a public contracting authority’s ability to rely on the exception in Article 32 of the EEA Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 39, affected by whether:






a)


the services in question have previously been the subject-matter of public service contracts between the contracting authority and both non-profit organisations and other (not non-profit) providers?










b)


other public contracting authorities in the same State still opt to conclude contracts for equivalent services with both non-profit organisations and other (not non-profit) providers?










c)


the power to take decisions to administer coercive health care in relation to persons without legal capacity to give consent who are opposed to that health care, is not placed directly with the contracting public authority’s contractor, but rather with the health personnel working for the contractor?














2.


How is the wording ‘even occasionally’ in Article 32 of the EEA Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 39, to be construed?




On the reservation for non-profit organisations:






1.


Do Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 74 – 77 of Directive 2014/24/EU preclude national legislation allowing public contracting authorities to reserve the right to participate in tendering procedures relating to health and social services for ‘non-profit organisations’ on the terms laid down in the national legislative provision in question?
Case T-137/22: Action brought on 14 March 2022 — Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2022198EN.01005301.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/53






Action brought on 14 March 2022 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-137/22)
(2022/C 198/77)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: and M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision bearing reference number Ares (2022) 99942 refusing the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for an extension by 4 years in addition to the 8-year period rule for the recovery of unduly paid amounts resulting from the FresQ case, and










—


order the Commission to pay 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 that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assumption that the recovery procedure in the FresQ case is not yet finalised.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission makes an erroneous application of the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as it assumes that the exceedance of the 8-year period for the recovery of the unduly paid amounts resulting from the FresQ case is attributable to the Netherlands.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10614 – PAI PARTNERS / UVESCO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 126/02
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, consumer goods, economic concentration, food industry, health care, investment company, merger control, provision of services, retail trade








C_2022126EN.01000501.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10614 – PAI PARTNERS / UVESCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 126/02)
On 14 March 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 32022M10614. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Communication 2022/C 118/02
Date: 2022-03-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: European cultural event, European symbol, Finland, Oulu, Slovakia, Trenčín region, capital city








C_2022118EN.01000401.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/4






Commission Communication
(2022/C 118/02)
The European Capitals of Culture 2026 are Oulu (Finland) and Trenčín (Slovakia).