do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-567/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — A.H. v Zagrebačka banka d.d (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms — Directive 93/13/EEC — Applicability of ratione temporis — Article 10(1) — Loan agreement concluded prior to Member State’s accession to the EU but amended after that date — Article 6 — Reimbursement of benefits improperly obtained by the seller or supplier — National legislation providing for the replacement of unfair terms and reimbursement of the overpayment — Applicability of ratione materiae — Article 1(2) — Exclusion of contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions)
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accession to the European Union, consumer credit, consumer protection, jurisdiction ratione materiae, unfair terms of contract








C_2022359EN.01000301.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — A.H. v Zagrebačka banka d.d
(Case C-567/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Applicability of ratione temporis - Article 10(1) - Loan agreement concluded prior to Member State’s accession to the EU but amended after that date - Article 6 - Reimbursement of benefits improperly obtained by the seller or supplier - National legislation providing for the replacement of unfair terms and reimbursement of the overpayment - Applicability of ratione materiae - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions)
(2022/C 359/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.H.

Defendant: Zagrebačka banka d.d

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that contract terms reflecting provisions of national law, under which the seller or supplier was obliged to propose to the consumer an amendment to his or her original contract by means of an agreement, the content of which is determined by those provisions, and the consumer was able to consent to such an amendment do not fall within the material scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004 adapting Directives 1999/45/EC, 2002/83/EC, 2003/37/EC and 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directives 77/388/EEC, 91/414/EEC, 96/26/EC, 2003/48/EC and 2003/49/EC, in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, agriculture, transport policy and taxation, by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (Official Journal of the European Union L 168 of 1 May 2004)
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: accession to the European Union, farming sector, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, tax system, transport policy








L_2022131EN.01000801.xml










5.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 131/8







Corrigendum to Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004 adapting Directives 1999/45/EC, 2002/83/EC, 2003/37/EC and 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directives 77/388/EEC, 91/414/EEC, 96/26/EC, 2003/48/EC and 2003/49/EC, in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, agriculture, transport policy and taxation, by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 168 of 1 May 2004
)








1.


On page 64, Annex, part IV ‘TRANSPORT POLICY’, point 2(b) (amending Annex II, point 2, to Directive 2003/59/EC):




for:


                  ‘juhi ametipädevuse kaart’,

read:


                  ‘juhi pädevustunnistus’.







2.


On page 65, Annex, part IV ‘TRANSPORT POLICY’, point 2(b) (amending Annex II, point 2, to Directive 2003/59/EC):




for:


                  ‘karta ta’ kwalifikazzjoni tas-sewwieq
…
carta de qualificação do motorista
preukaz o kvalifikácii vodiča’,

read:


                  ‘karta ta’ kwalifika tas-sewwieq
…
carta de qualificação de motorista
kvalifikačná karta vodiča’.
Case C-321/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 May 2022 — ZL, KU, KM v Provident Polska S.A.
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, loan, principle of proportionality, unfair terms of contract








C_2022318EN.01002601.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 May 2022 — ZL, KU, KM v Provident Polska S.A.
(Case C-321/22)
(2022/C 318/37)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants and counter-defendants: ZL, KU, KM

Defendant and counter-applicant: Provident Polska S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as permitting a contractual term which grants a seller or supplier a fee or commission that is disproportionately high in relation to the service offered to be regarded as an unfair contractual term?










2.


Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law or a judicial interpretation of those provisions under which the consumer must have a legal interest in order for an action brought by the consumer against a seller or supplier for a declaration that a contract or part thereof that contains unfair terms is void or ineffective to be upheld?










3.


Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts as well as the principles of effectiveness, proportionality and legal certainty be interpreted as permitting the finding that a loan agreement whose sole term which provides for the manner of loan repayment has been found to be unfair must not continue in force after that term has been excluded therefrom and is therefore void?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2022/C 183/05
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, operating result








C_2022183EN.01000501.xml










5.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/5






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2022/C 183/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


21 December 2021




Case No


87966




Decision No


301/21/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title


COVID-19 prolongation and amendments to the aid scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover




Legal basis


Act on the temporary subsidy scheme for enterprises with a significant reduction in turnover after August 2020




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Compensate losses and thereby limit the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


NOK 4.2 billion




Intensity


70-90 %




Duration


Until 30 June 2022




Economic sectors


All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, companies engaged in production, transmission, distribution and trade of electric power, financial institutions and companies whose main purpose is investment activities




Name and address of the granting authority


The Brønnøysund Register Centre
Brønnøysundregistrene
Postboks 900
N-8910 Brønnøysund
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Internet: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-218/21: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Rates — Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services — Point 2 of Annex IV — Renovation and repairing of private dwellings — Application of a reduced rate of VAT to repair and maintenance services for lifts in residential buildings)
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, improvement of housing, lift, maintenance, provision of services, tax relief








C_2022257EN.01001202.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/12






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA
(Case C-218/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Rates - Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services - Point 2 of Annex IV - Renovation and repairing of private dwellings - Application of a reduced rate of VAT to repair and maintenance services for lifts in residential buildings)
(2022/C 257/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’, within the meaning of that provision, covers repair and renovation services for lifts in residential buildings, excluding maintenance services for such lifts.


(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court of 5 May 2022 in Case E-12/20 Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Competition – Article 54 EEA – Market definition – Abuse of dominant position – Margin squeeze) 2023/C 29/03
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, fine, mobile communication, parent company, provision of services, retail trade, subsidiary, telephone charges, wholesale trade








C_2023029EN.01003801.xml










26.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/38






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 5 May 2022
in Case E-12/20
Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority


(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Competition – Article 54 EEA – Market definition – Abuse of dominant position – Margin squeeze)


(2023/C 29/03)
In Case E-12/20, Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 070/20/COL of 29 June 2020 relating to proceedings under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement; or, in the alternative, the annulment of the Decision in part; or, in the alternative, to annul or reduce the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Nicole Kaiser (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 5 May 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the application in its entirety.










2.


Orders Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS to bear their own costs and those of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 183/02
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France, Ile-de-France, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022183EN.01000201.xml










5.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/2






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 183/02)






Member State


France




Route concerned


Le Puy-en-Velay - Paris (Orly)




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1995




Date of entry into force of modifications


14 January 2023




Address where the text and any information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained


Order of 22 March 2022 imposing the public service obligation on scheduled air services between le Puy-en-Velay (Loudes) and Paris (Orly)
NOR : TRAA2201947A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:
Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile





DTA/SDS1




50 rue Henry Farman




75 720  Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tél. +33 158094321
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2022 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.)) 2022/C 183/06
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2022183EN.01000601.xml










5.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/6






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2022


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1))

(2022/C 183/06)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2022 –


2,12 


-0,57 


0,66 






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 May 2022 2022/C 183/01
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022183EN.01000101.xml










5.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 May 2022
(2022/C 183/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0531 




JPY


Japanese yen


136,84 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4409 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84194 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3968 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0324 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9042 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,644 




HUF


Hungarian forint


377,55 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6875 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9470 




TRY


Turkish lira


15,5769 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4780 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3498 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2655 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6333 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4559 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,45 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6489 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9594 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5499 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 201,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5847 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,260 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,137 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2400 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2947 




INR


Indian rupee


80,4035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-265/20: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — FN v Universiteit Antwerpen and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Part-time work — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4.1 — Principle of non-discrimination — Part-time academic staff — Automatic permanent appointments reserved for academic staff members holding a full-time teaching post — Calculation of the percentage of a full-time workload to which a part-time workload corresponds — No requirements)
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, full-time employment, labour law, part-time employment, staff regulations, teacher, work contract








C_2022244EN.01000501.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — FN v Universiteit Antwerpen and Others
(Case C-265/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Part-time work - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4.1 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time academic staff - Automatic permanent appointments reserved for academic staff members holding a full-time teaching post - Calculation of the percentage of a full-time workload to which a part-time workload corresponds - No requirements)
(2022/C 244/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FN

Defendant: Universiteit Antwerpen, Vlaamse Autonome Hogeschool Hogere Zeevaartschool, PB, ZK, NG, ZN, UM

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which an academic staff member holding a full-time teaching post is to be automatically appointed on a permanent basis, without any objective reason other than the fact that that position is held on a full-time basis, whereas an academic staff member holding a part-time teaching post is to be either appointed on a permanent basis or employed on a temporary basis;










2.


The Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not lay down any requirements for an employer hiring a part-time worker as to the method of calculating the full-time workload to which a part-time workload corresponds.






(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Case C-54/20 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2022 — European Commission v Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others (Appeal — Civil service — Non-contractual liability of the European Union based on a failure of an institution to fulfil its duty to ensure the protection of its officials — Delegation of the European Commission in Morocco — Murdered official — Non-material damage suffered by the official’s brother and sister — Remedy — Articles 270, 268 and 340 TFEU — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Articles 40, 42b, 55a, 73, 90 and 91 — Concept of a ‘person to whom the Staff Regulations apply’ — Statement of reasons)
Date: 2022-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, Morocco, Union delegation, family relationship, homicide, indemnification, occupational mortality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022244EN.01000401.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/4






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2022 — European Commission v Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others
(Case C-54/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Non-contractual liability of the European Union based on a failure of an institution to fulfil its duty to ensure the protection of its officials - Delegation of the European Commission in Morocco - Murdered official - Non-material damage suffered by the official’s brother and sister - Remedy - Articles 270, 268 and 340 TFEU - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Articles 40, 42b, 55a, 73, 90 and 91 - Concept of a ‘person to whom the Staff Regulations apply’ - Statement of reasons)
(2022/C 244/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, T.S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (represented by: F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, avvocati), Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin, Carlo Amadeo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Giustina Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Tommaso Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Filiberto Missir Mamachi di Lusignano

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Ms Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano.






(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.