do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 6 July 2022 2022/C 262/04
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022262EN.01000601.xml










7.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 July 2022
(2022/C 262/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0177 




JPY


Japanese yen


137,71 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4403 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85676 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7450 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9896 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2803 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,778 




HUF


Hungarian forint


411,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7710 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9440 




TRY


Turkish lira


17,5505 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4961 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3274 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,9864 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6505 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4305 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,69 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0246 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8289 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5198 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 287,49 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5028 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,779 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,780 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5116 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0194 




INR


Indian rupee


80,5321 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-213/21 and C-214/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21) v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Scope — Article 10(h) — Specific exclusions for service contracts — Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services — Non-profit organisations or associations — Ambulance service classified as an emergency service — Voluntary organisations — Social cooperatives)
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, civil defence, cooperative, emergency medical treatment, non-profit organisation, public procurement, services contract, transport of patients, voluntary organisation








C_2022318EN.01001402.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/14






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21) v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)
(Joined Cases C-213/21 and C-214/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Scope - Article 10(h) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Ambulance service classified as an emergency service - Voluntary organisations - Social cooperatives)
(2022/C 318/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21)

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Interveners: Regione Puglia (C-213/21), Confederazione Nazionale delle Misericordie d’Italia (C-213/21), Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze (Organizzazione nazionale di volontariato) — ANPAS ODV (C-213/21 and C-214/21), Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that emergency ambulance transport services may be awarded, by contract, on a preferential basis, only to voluntary organisations, and not to social cooperatives which can offer rebates associated with their activities to their members.


(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Case C-308/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — KU, OP, GC v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 5(3) — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Extraordinary circumstances — Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport)
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, airport, carriage of passengers, civil aviation, fuel, indemnification, traveller








C_2022318EN.01001701.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — KU, OP, GC v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA
(Case C-308/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport)
(2022/C 318/23)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: KU, OP, GC

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that where the airport of origin of the flights or aircraft concerned is responsible for the aircraft refuelling system, a generalised breakdown in the supply of fuel can be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10799 – REGGEBORGH / ELLAKTOR) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 269/05
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, environmental protection, financial services, investment company, merger control, property development, public contract, real estate business, renewable energy








C_2022269EN.01002701.xml










13.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/27






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10799 – REGGEBORGH / ELLAKTOR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 269/05)
On 7 July 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 32022M10799. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-13/21: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc — Romania) — Pricoforest SRL v Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Exceptions — Article 13(1)(b) — Notion of ‘a radius of up to 100 kilometres (km) from the base of the undertaking’ — Vehicles effecting carriage within and also outside of that radius)
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, establishment, road transport, social legislation, transport regulations








C_2022318EN.01000601.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc — Romania) — Pricoforest SRL v Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)
(Case C-13/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Social legislation - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Exceptions - Article 13(1)(b) - Notion of ‘a radius of up to 100 kilometres (km) from the base of the undertaking’ - Vehicles effecting carriage within and also outside of that radius)
(2022/C 318/07)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pricoforest SRL

Defendant: Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The notion of a ‘radius of up to 100 [kilometres (km)] from the base of the undertaking’, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020, must be understood as referring to a straight line not exceeding 100 km, drawn on the map from that base and joining the base to any point in a circular geographical area surrounding that same base.










2.


Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended by Regulation 2020/1054, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has granted, on the basis of that provision, exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of that regulation, which are applicable to the carriage of goods by vehicles covered by that provision, and where those vehicles carry those goods not only within a radius of up to 100 km from the base of the undertaking concerned, but also outside of that radius, those exceptions are applicable only to the carriage of goods by those vehicles which does not occur outside of that radius.






(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10772 – TSM / IREPSE) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 262/10
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Finland, care for the elderly, care of people with disabilities, economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control








C_2022262EN.01001501.xml










7.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10772 – TSM / IREPSE)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 262/10)

1.   
On 28 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:






—


Triton Smaller Mid-Cap Fund II (‘TSM’, Luxembourg), controlled by Triton Group (Luxembourg),










—


Irepse Oy (‘Irepse’, Finland).




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


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






—


TSM is an investment fund, owned by Triton Group, which is a European privately-held investment firm that manages a number of independent investment funds and companies,










—


Irepse is the ultimate parent company of the Esperi Group, a provider of elderly care, mental and substance abuse rehabilitation care, and disabled care services in Finland.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.10772 – TSM / IREPSE
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-264/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘producer’ — Any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or having authorised those particulars to be put on the product, presents himself as its producer)
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: defective product, labelling, producer's liability, product designation, trade mark








C_2022318EN.01001602.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/16






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips NV
(Case C-264/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘producer’ - Any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or having authorised those particulars to be put on the product, presents himself as its producer)
(2022/C 318/22)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Respondent: Koninklijke Philips NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘producer’, referred to in that provision, does not require that the person who has put his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has authorised those particulars to be put on the product, also present himself as the producer of that product in some other way.


(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case C-451/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2022 — RTL Nederland BV, RTL Nieuws BV; Other party: Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accident prevention, air safety, civil aviation, confidentiality, disclosure of information, freedom of expression, transport accident








C_2022380EN.01000401.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2022 — RTL Nederland BV, RTL Nieuws BV; Other party: Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat
(Case C-451/22)
(2022/C 380/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: RTL Nederland BV, RTL Nieuws BV

Other party: Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat

Questions referred







1.


What should be understood by details of ‘occurrences’ and ‘appropriate confidentiality’ as referred to in Article 15(1) of the Occurrences Regulation (1) and in the light of the right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter and Article 10 of the ECHR?










2.


Is Article 15(1) of the Occurrences Regulation, in the light of the right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter and Article 10 of the ECHR, to be interpreted as being compatible with a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which no information received from reported occurrences may be disclosed?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: is the competent national authority permitted to apply a general national rule on disclosure by virtue of which information is not disclosed if disclosure would be outweighed by the interests concerned with, for example, relations with other States and international organisations, with inspection, control and monitoring by administrative authorities, with respect for privacy and with preventing natural and legal persons from being disproportionately advantaged and disadvantaged?










4.


When the general national rule on disclosure is applied, does it make any difference whether the information in question is contained in the national database or is information from or about reports contained in other documents, for example, policy documents?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 (OJ 2014 L 122, p. 18).
Case C-696/20: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — B. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 41 — Intra-Community acquisition of goods — Place — Chain of successive transactions — Incorrect classification of some of the transactions — Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality)
Date: 2022-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, commercial transaction, intra-EU trade, principle of proportionality, tax exemption, tax law








C_2022318EN.01000402.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/4






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — B. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.
(Case C-696/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 41 - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Place - Chain of successive transactions - Incorrect classification of some of the transactions - Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality)
(2022/C 318/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: B.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which an intra-Community acquisition of goods is regarded as having been made in the territory of that Member State, where that acquisition, which constitutes the first stage of a chain of successive transactions, was wrongly classified as a domestic transaction by the taxable persons involved, which indicated for that purpose their value added tax (VAT) identification number allocated by that Member State, and VAT was applied to the subsequent transaction, which was wrongly classified as an intra-Community transaction, as an intra-Community acquisition of goods by the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State in which the transport of the goods ended. That provision, read in the light of the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality, nevertheless precludes such legislation of a Member State where the intra-Community acquisition of goods which is regarded as being realised within the territory of that Member State results from an intra-Community supply of goods which has not been treated as an exempt transaction in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.