do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-463/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts München (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — DP v BMW Bank GmbH
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, contract, financial services, hire purchase, trade intermediary








C_2022380EN.01000501.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts München (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — DP v BMW Bank GmbH
(Case C-463/22)
(2022/C 380/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgerichts München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DP

Defendant: BMW Bank GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a distance contract within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) and point 7 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU (2) exist where the only personal contact during contractual negotiations was with a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?










2.


Does an off-premises contract within the meaning of points 8 and 9 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83 exist where the contractual negotiations take place on the premises of a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?










3.


Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?






(1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

(2)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Council Decision (EU) 2022/1212 of 12 July 2022 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Portugal, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area




L_2022187EN.01003501.xml










14.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 187/35








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1212
of 12 July 2022
         
amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,


Having regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 17 May 2022 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal (ECB/2022/24) (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.












(2)


The mandate of the Banco de Portugal’s current external auditors, Deloitte & Associados – Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas S.A., ended following the audit for the financial year 2021. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors for the financial years 2022 to 2026.












(3)


The Banco de Portugal has selected PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Associados – Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas Lda as its external auditors for the financial years 2022 to 2026.












(4)


The Governing Council of the ECB recommended that PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Associados – Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas Lda be appointed as the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal for the financial years 2022 to 2026.












(5)


Following the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB, Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 1 of Decision 1999/70/EC, paragraph 10 is replaced by the following:


‘10.   PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Associados – Sociedade de Revisores Oficiais de Contas Lda are hereby approved as the external auditors of the Banco de Portugal for the financial years 2022 to 2026.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.




Done at Brussels, 12 July 2022.


For the Council


The President

Z. STANJURA
            





(1)  
            OJ C 210, 25.5.2022, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision 1999/70/EC of 25 January 1999 concerning the external auditors of the national central banks (OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69).
Case T-440/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — UIV Servizi v REA
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, EU aid, civil code, contract terms, damages, general legal principle, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022359EN.01008301.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/83






Action brought on 12 July 2022 — UIV Servizi v REA
(Case T-440/22)
(2022/C 359/101)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unione Italiana Vini Servizi (UIV Servizi) Soc. coop. arl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: B. Bonafini, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the GA suspension (Article 33.2) confirmation letter (ref. Ares (2022)3368330 — 02/05/2022) as well as the suspension of the contract itself invalid for breach of contract and of the relevant general principles of EU law invoked in the present application;










—


condemn the European Research Executive Agency (REA) to lift the suspension of Grant Agreement 874904-TTD.EU — European Quality Wines: Taste The Difference;










—


condemn the REA to compensate the applicant’s pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages — as documented — in an amount to be fixed at EUR 500 000;










—


order the REA to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the unlawful nature of the Grant Agreement (GA) suspension confirmation letter — Misapplication of Article 33.2.1 (a) of the GA 874904-TTD.EU (definition of ‘substantial errors, irregularities or fraud’)






—


Breach of the principle of presumption of innocence and of Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


Manifest error of assessment as a matter of EU law — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations — Breach of the good faith principles as a matter of EU and Belgian law — Breach of the combined application of Articles 1134 and 1156 of the Civil Code of Belgium.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality by the REA.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful nature of the GA suspension confirmation letter — Non-application of Article 33.2.1 (b) of the GA 874904- TTD.EU — ‘Material impact’ of the alleged ‘systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations’ on TTD.EU GA.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principles of good administration set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of Union law of legal certainty, of legitimate expectations and of proportionality and the obligation to give reasons as set out in Article 296, paragraph 2, TFEU.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10749 – PAI PARTNERS / THE CARLYLE GROUP / THERAMEX) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 87/01
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: contraception, economic concentration, fertility, investment company, merger control, musculoskeletal disorder, pharmaceutical industry








C_2023087EN.01000101.xml










9.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10749 – PAI PARTNERS / THE CARLYLE GROUP / THERAMEX)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 87/01)
On 12 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 32022M10749 . EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-442/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, appointment of members, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, public prosecutor's department, rights of the defence








C_2022380EN.01001601.xml










3.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/16






Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
(Case T-442/22)
(2022/C 380/19)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: PU (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,










—


order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging procedural errors:






—


breach of the principle of impartiality, of the principle of equality in the appraisal procedure to be followed in respect of the candidates proposed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, of the essential procedural requirements under Articles 1 to 3 of Decision No 013/2020 of the College laying down rules on the procedure for the appointment of European Delegated Prosecutors, of the obligation to provide a record of the interview and of the right to be heard.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the grounds of the contested decisions.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and exceeding of the limits of discretion.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.
Case C-466/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 July 2022 — V.B. Trade OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo
Date: 2022-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: courts and tribunals, digital evidence, electronic signature








C_2022389EN.01000601.xml










10.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 July 2022 — V.B. Trade OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo
(Case C-466/22)
(2022/C 389/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant in the main proceedings: V.B. Trade OOD

Defendant in the main proceedings: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo

Questions referred







1.


Must the phrase ‘legal effect [of an electronic signature] as evidence’ in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC be interpreted as meaning that that provision requires the courts of the Member States to presume that, where the requirements of [points] 10, 11 and 12 of Article 3 of that regulation are met or are not in dispute, the existence and claimed authorship of such a signature must be presumed a priori to be established beyond doubt or dispute, and must that phrase be interpreted as meaning that, where the requirements of those provisions are met, the courts of the Member States are required to recognise that the qualified electronic signature has the evidential value/force equivalent to that of a handwritten signature only to the extent that the relevant national legal regime prescribes in respect of such a handwritten signature?










2.


Must the phrase ‘shall not be denied … in legal proceedings’ in Article 25(1) of that regulation be interpreted as imposing on the national courts of the Member States an absolute prohibition on using the procedural possibilities provided for in their legal systems to deny evidential value to the legal effect of the electronic signature provided for in that regulation, or must it be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not preclude the possibility to refute the requirements of [points] 10, 11 and 12 of Article 3 of that regulation as being met, through the use, by the national courts of the Member States, of the instruments applicable under their procedural laws, thereby enabling the parties to a dispute before the courts to refute an electronic signature’s evidential force and value, as provided for?






(1)  OJ 2014 L 257, p. 73.