do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 June 2022 2022/C 245/09
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022245EN.01001401.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/14






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 June 2022
(2022/C 245/09)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0572 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4408 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86200 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6713 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0143 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4080 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,724 




HUF


Hungarian forint


402,62 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6990 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9440 




TRY


Turkish lira


17,4794 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5278 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3639 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2946 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6801 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4641 




KRW


South Korean won


1 357,68 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7967 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0737 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5333 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 635,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6559 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,900 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,361 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5446 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0410 




INR


Indian rupee


82,9325 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Opinion 02/2022 (pursuant to Article 322(1), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union [2022/0125(COD)] 2022/C 285/03
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, financial control, financial management, financial regulation, general budget (EU), interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2022285EN.01000301.xml










26.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/3






Opinion 02/2022


(pursuant to Article 322(1), TFEU)


concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union [2022/0125(COD)]
(2022/C 285/03)
The European Court of Auditors has published its opinion 02/2022 (pursuant to Article 322(1), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union [2022/0125(COD)].
The opinion can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website:
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61866
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures 2022/C 245/12
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: India, bar, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2022245EN.01001801.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/18






Notice of the expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
(2022/C 245/12)
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-subsidy measure mentioned below will expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain stainless steel bars and rods


India


Anti-subsidy duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council
(OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2)


29.6.2022






(1)  OJ C 390, 27.9.2021, p. 9.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1019 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2022/C 245/05
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2022245EN.01001001.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/10






Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1019 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2022/C 245/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that are presently designated in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1019 (2) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1010 (4) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities presently designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.
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 on the websites in Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 26 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 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




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 170, 28.6.2022, p. 85.

(3)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 170, 28.6.2022, p. 17.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10733 – CMA CGM / GEFCO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 245/13
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control








C_2022245EN.01001901.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/19






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10733 – CMA CGM / GEFCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 245/13)

1.   
On 17 June 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


CMA CGM S.A. (‘CMA CGM’, France),










—


GEFCO S.A. (‘GEFCO’, France).




CMA CGM will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of GEFCO.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


CMA CGM: container liner shipping and port terminal services. CMA CGM is also active worldwide, through its wholly-owned subsidiary CEVA Logistics , on the markets for freight forwarding and contract logistics services,










—


GEFCO: freight forwarding and contract logistics services, with a focus on finished vehicle logistics. It is active mainly in Europe but also in the rest of the world (South America, the United States, Asia and Australia).






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10733 – CMA CGM / GEFCO
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case C-431/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Scuola europea di Varese v PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European school, backwardness at school, jurisdiction, organisation of teaching, parental responsibility, pupil, secondary education








C_2022359EN.01004401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/44






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Scuola europea di Varese v PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG
(Case C-431/22)
(2022/C 359/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Scuola europea di Varese

Defendants: PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG

Question referred

Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, done in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994, to be interpreted as meaning that the Complaints Board referred to therein is to have sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels provided for in the General Rules have been exhausted, in any dispute concerning a decision on repeating a year adopted in relation to a secondary-school pupil by the Class Council?
Case C-425/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, economic concentration, jurisdiction, nationality of legal persons, parent company, restriction on competition, subsidiary








C_2022326EN.01001202.xml










29.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG
(Case C-425/22)
(2022/C 326/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Questions referred







1.


Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)? (1)











2.


Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 2022/C 245/07
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, North Korea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2022245EN.01001201.xml










28.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/12






Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(2022/C 245/07)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. O Kuk-Ryol (no. 3), Mr. KIM Yong Chol (no. 7), Mr. HONG Sung-Mu (no. 10), Mr. KIM Chun-sop (no. 13), Mr. KIM Won-hong (no. 16), Mr. PAK Jong-chon (no. 17), Mr. SON Chol-ju (no. 19), Mr. YUN Jong-rin (no. 20), Mr. HONG Yong Chil (no. 21), Mr. YUN Chang Hyok (no. 23), Mr. RI Myong Su (no. 24), Mr. SO Hong Chan (no. 25), Mr. WANG Chang Uk (no. 26), Mr. JANG Chol (no. 27) as well as Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre (no. 4), persons and entities appearing in section I of Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1) and in Annex XV to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (2), as well as Mr. JON Il-chun (no. 1) and Mr. KIM Tong-un (no. 2), persons appearing in section II of Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (3) and in Annex XV to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (4), as well as Mr. KIM Hyok Chan (no. 1), person appearing in Annex III to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (5) and in Annex XVI to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (6).
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 5 July 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


(1)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.

(2)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.

(4)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.

(6)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.
Case T-150/21: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission (Application for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China — Initiation of an investigation for circumvention of the existing anti-dumping measures making imports subject to registration — Imports of aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, originating in China — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Thailand, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), originating product, surveillance concerning imports, thin sheet








C_2022318EN.01003601.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/36






Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission
(Case T-150/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China - Initiation of an investigation for circumvention of the existing anti-dumping measures making imports subject to registration - Imports of aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, originating in China - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 318/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand) Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 48).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd are to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case C-430/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against VB
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, appeal, carrying out of sentence, criminal proceedings, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022408EN.01002702.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against VB
(Case C-430/22)
(2022/C 408/37)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

VB

Questions referred

Must the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 (1) be interpreted as obliging a national court which convicts an accused person in absentia, without the conditions of Article 8(2) being met, to make express reference to the accused person’s right to have the proceedings reopened, to which he or she is entitled under Article 9 of that directive, in order that he or she can be informed of that right at a later stage, in particular when he or she is detained for the purpose of executing the sentence? The question arises in the light of the fact that national law provides neither for the person convicted in absentia to be informed of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened when he or she is detained for the purpose of executing the sentence, nor for the involvement of a court in the issuing of a European arrest warrant for the purpose of executing the sentence.
Must the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343, and in particular the phrase ‘also informed of the possibility to challenge the decision and of the right to a new trial or to another legal remedy, in accordance with Article 9’, be interpreted as meaning that such information concerns a formally recognised right to have the proceedings reopened, or does it concern the right to request such reopening, whereby the substance of the request must then be examined?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case C-432/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against PT, SD
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, charge, criminal proceedings, drug traffic, organised crime, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2022408EN.01002801.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against PT, SD
(Case C-432/22)
(2022/C 408/38)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

PT, SD

Questions referred

In the context of criminal proceedings concerning charges brought for offences coming within the scope of EU law, is it compatible with the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter for a national law to impose a requirement under which a court other than the one hearing the case and before which all the evidence has been taken is to examine the substance of an agreement entered into between the public prosecutor and an accused person, whereby the reason behind that requirement is the fact that there are other co-accused persons who have not entered into an agreement?
Is a national law under which an agreement discontinuing criminal proceedings is to be approved only with the consent of all other co-accused persons and their defence counsel compatible with Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757, (1) Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, (2) the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 52 of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 47 thereof?
Does the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter require a court, after having examined and approved an agreement, to decline to examine the charges against the other co-accused persons where it has ruled on that agreement in such a manner that it does not make any statement as to their involvement or express an opinion as to their guilt?


(1)  Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime (OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42).