do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1096 of 30 June 2022 establishing the equivalence, for the purpose of facilitating the right of free movement within the Union, of COVID-19 certificates issued by the Republic of Korea to the certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 1 July 2022)
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, coronavirus disease, epidemic, free movement of persons, health certificate, health control, technical specification, vaccination








L_2022201EN.01007401.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 201/74







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1096 of 30 June 2022 establishing the equivalence, for the purpose of facilitating the right of free movement within the Union, of COVID-19 certificates issued by the Republic of Korea to the certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 1 July 2022
)


On page 65, in recital 4:
for:







‘(4)


The Republic of Korea also informed the Commission that, there are currently no travel restrictions related to COVID-19 for entry and stay into the Republic of Korea. Should there be a need to re-introduce travel requirements, the Republic of Korea confirms that it would accept vaccination and test certificates issued by the Member States and EEA countries in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953. Concerning the vaccination certificates, the Republic of Korea informed the Commission that certificates indicating vaccines with EU-wide authorisation will only be accepted if the vaccine has completed the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure. Concerning the recognition of the recovery certificates in particular, in case of need to re-introduce travel restrictions, the Republic of Korea confirms that it would not recognise them.’;





read:







‘(4)


The Republic of Korea also informed the Commission that it would accept vaccination and test certificates issued by the Member States and countries of the European Economic Area in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/953 under the same conditions as its own certificates. However, the Republic of Korea informed the Commission that, due to the epidemiological situation, it currently required tests for all incoming travellers. Concerning the vaccination certificates, the Republic of Korea informed the Commission that certificates indicating vaccines with Union-wide authorisation would only be accepted if the vaccine has completed the WHO Emergency Use Listing procedure. Finally, the Republic of Korea informed the Commission that it did not accept certificates of recovery.’.
Case C-588/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Landkreis Northeim v Daimler AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law — European Commission decision finding an infringement — Settlement procedure — Products concerned by the infringement — Specialised trucks — Household refuse collection trucks)
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, commercial vehicle, control of restrictive practices, infringement of EU law, inter-company agreement, large vehicle, price agreement, waste management








C_2022408EN.01000901.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Landkreis Northeim v Daimler AG
(Case C-588/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - European Commission decision finding an infringement - Settlement procedure - Products concerned by the infringement - Specialised trucks - Household refuse collection trucks)
(2022/C 408/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landkreis Northeim

Defendant: Daimler AG

Intervening parties: Iveco Magirus AG, Traton SE, successor in law to MAN SE, MAN Truck & Bus and MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH, Schönmackers Umweltdienste GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016, notified under reference C(2016) 4673 final, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) must be interpreted as meaning that specialised trucks, including household refuse collection trucks, fall within the scope of the products covered by the cartel found in that decision.


(1)  
            OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 29 July 2022 2022/C 293/06
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022293EN.01000701.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 July 2022
(2022/C 293/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0198 




JPY


Japanese yen


136,42 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4438 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83990 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3875 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9744 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8773 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,610 




HUF


Hungarian forint


404,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7375 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9343 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,2472 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4646 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3100 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0054 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6283 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4088 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,40 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8627 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8705 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5180 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 155,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5386 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,375 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,978 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2739 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6745 




INR


Indian rupee


80,8820 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-475/22: Action brought on 1 August 2022 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and Others
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, Spain, bank, bank resolution, financial solvency, indemnification, operation of the Institutions, price of securities, public statement, shareholder








C_2022398EN.01003001.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/30






Action brought on 1 August 2022 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and Others
(Case T-475/22)
(2022/C 398/36)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Fernández García, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability for the unlawful and negligent conduct of the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board and the European Central Bank in respect of the facts set out in the application;










—


order the European Union to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 47 513 972,73, corresponding to the calculations and the quantification set out in the expert report annexed to the application, plus statutory interest, and order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board acted unlawfully by making alarmist public statements and engaging in actions (in particular leaks) constituting irresponsible conduct, which led to the immediate collapse in the share price of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and precipitated its resolution.










2.


Second plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission acted negligently by adopting and approving the resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. without having verified and confirmed, in accordance with EU legislation, whether the requirements and preconditions for applying that resolution mechanism had been met and by failing — once that mechanism was agreed upon — to comply with EU legislation on the resolution procedure or with the rights of the shareholders and/or holders of securities in the bank.










3.


Third plea, alleging that the European Central Bank failed to exercise care in monitoring, supervising, forecasting, regulating and establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure the liquidity of Banco Popular Español, S.A. and to prevent its resolution.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply 2022/C 293/02
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Guinea-Bissau, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022293EN.01000201.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/2






Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply
(2022/C 293/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/285/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 should continue to apply to those persons, with the exception of nine persons who should be removed from the lists in Annex II and Annex III of Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 377/2012.
The attention of the persons 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 listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 377/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, by 31 October 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG RELEX 1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 36.

(2)  OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 1.
Case C-267/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 56 — Supply of insurance services — Point of reference for tax purposes — Claims settlement services provided by third-party companies in the name and on behalf of an insurer)
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, insurance claim, insurance company, provision of services








C_2022408EN.01001801.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/18






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
(Case C-267/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56 - Supply of insurance services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Claims settlement services provided by third-party companies in the name and on behalf of an insurer)
(2022/C 408/20)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Uniqa Asigurări SA

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services provided by third-party companies, in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not come within the scope of the ‘services of consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information’ referred to in that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10777 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / VARROC (LIGHTING DIVISION)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 298/02
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, light-duty vehicle, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2022298EN.01005601.xml










5.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/56






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10777 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / VARROC (LIGHTING DIVISION))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 298/02)
On 1 August 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 32022M10777. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-19/21: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 8(2) and Article 27(1) — Unaccompanied minor with a relative legally present in another Member State — Refusal by that Member State of that minor’s take charge request — Right to an effective remedy of that minor or of that relative against the refusal decision — Articles 7, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Best interests of the child)
Date: 2022-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: children's rights, family reunification, foreign national, international protection, judicial review, protection of privacy, right of asylum, right to justice, unaccompanied child








C_2022408EN.01001501.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/15






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-19/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 8(2) and Article 27(1) - Unaccompanied minor with a relative legally present in another Member State - Refusal by that Member State of that minor’s take charge request - Right to an effective remedy of that minor or of that relative against the refusal decision - Articles 7, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Best interests of the child)
(2022/C 408/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: I, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
must be interpreted as meaning that:
it requires a Member State to which a take charge request has been made, based on Article 8(2) of that regulation, to grant a right to a judicial remedy against its refusal decision to the unaccompanied minor, within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that regulation, who applies for international protection, but not to the relative of that minor, within the meaning of Article 2(h) of that regulation.


(1)  
            OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.