do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 October 2022 2022/C 393/04
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022393EN.01000401.xml










13.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 October 2022
(2022/C 393/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


0,9706 




JPY


Japanese yen


142,34 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87840 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0200 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9664 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4145 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,561 




HUF


Hungarian forint


429,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,8495 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9400 




TRY


Turkish lira


18,0427 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5525 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3395 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


7,6192 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7372 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,3941 




KRW


South Korean won


1 384,66 




ZAR


South African rand


17,6876 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9603 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5290 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 907,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5448 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,148 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,902 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,1378 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,4522 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-431/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Corporation tax — Determination of the taxable income of companies — Transactions featuring foreign elements — Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence — Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty)
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, commercial transaction, corporation tax, economic interdependence, foreign trade, freedom to provide services, right of establishment, taxable income








C_2022463EN.01001201.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/12






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen
(Case C-431/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Corporation tax - Determination of the taxable income of companies - Transactions featuring foreign elements - Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence - Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty)
(2022/C 463/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, in the first place, the taxpayer is subject to an obligation to provide documentation on the nature and content of, as well as on the economic and legal bases for, prices and other terms and conditions of his, her or its cross-border business transactions, with parties with which he, she or it has a relationship of interdependence, in capital or other aspects, enabling that taxpayer or those parties to exercise a definite influence over the other, and which provides, in the second place, in the event of infringement of that obligation, not only that his, her or its taxable income in the Member State concerned is rebuttably presumed to be higher than that which has been declared, and the tax authorities may carry out an estimate to the detriment of the taxpayer, but also that a surcharge of an amount equivalent to at least 5 % and at most 10 % of the excess income determined is imposed, with a minimum amount of EUR 5 000, unless non-compliance with that obligation is excusable or if the fault involved is minor.


(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10863 – HANWHA Q CELLS / ENERCITY / LYNQTECH) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 404/02
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: drinking water, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, heating, information technology industry, merger control, natural gas, provision of services, solar architecture, solar energy end-use applications








C_2022404EN.01000501.xml










20.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10863 – HANWHA Q CELLS / ENERCITY / LYNQTECH)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 404/02)
On 13 October 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 32022M10863. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10638 – ALD / LEASEPLAN) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 393/08
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, management, merger control, provision of services, vehicle fleet, vehicle rental








C_2022393EN.01001601.xml










13.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10638 – ALD / LEASEPLAN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 393/08)

1.   
On 5 October 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:






—


ALD S.A. (‘ALD’, France),










—


LP Group B.V. (‘LeasePlan’, the Netherlands).




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


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






—


ALD: mobility solutions, mainly vehicle leasing and related management services. ALD is solely controlled by Société Générale S.A. (France), a banking and financial services group headquartered in Paris,










—


LeasePlan: fleet management and driver mobility company.






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.10638 – ALD / LEASEPLAN
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’).
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Contracting Entity 2022/C 393/09
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, postal service, provision of services








C_2022393EN.01001701.xml










13.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/17






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2022/C 393/09)
On 19 April 2022 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The request has been submitted by the Republic of Italy, on behalf of Poste Italiane S.p.A. The first working day following receipt of the request is 20 April 2022.
This request concerns activities relating to the provision of mail service management services in Italy. The relevant notice was published on page number 21 of OJ C 263 of 8 July 2022. The initial deadline was 18 November 2022.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. As agreed by the Commission and the applicant, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended by 37 working days.
The final deadline therefore expires on 18 January 2023.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Council Decision (EU) 2022/1963 of 13 October 2022 appointing a member, proposed by the Czech Republic, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Czechia, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








L_2022270EN.01006501.xml










18.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 270/65








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1963
of 13 October 2022
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Czech Republic, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),


Having regard to the proposal of the Czech Government,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.












(2)


On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(3)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Josef BERNARD.












(4)


The Czech Government has proposed Mr Rudolf ŠPOTÁK, representative of a regional body who holds a regional authority electoral mandate, Zastupitel Plzeňského kraje (Member of the Regional Assembly of the Plzeň Region), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Rudolf ŠPOTÁK, representative of a regional body who holds an electoral mandate, Zastupitel Plzeňského kraje (Member of the Regional Assembly of the Plzeň Region), is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 13 October 2022.


For the Council


The President

P. BLAŽEK
            





(1)  
            OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).
Case C-645/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 October 2022 — R. A. and Others v Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2022482EN.01001002.xml










19.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 October 2022 — R. A. and Others v Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch
(Case C-645/22)
(2022/C 482/15)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants at first instance, appellants and appellants on a point of law: R. A. and Others

Defendant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer expresses the intention to preserve a contract by replacing an unfair term contained therein, a court, after finding that the contract cannot remain valid following the removal of the term found to be unfair, may rule on the issue of replacing the unfair term without first assessing the possibility of annulling the contract in its entirety?










2.


Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the national court has the possibility of replacing the unfair term contained in the contract with a supplementary provision or a provision of national law applied by mutual agreement of the parties to the contract in question?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-256/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 124(a) and (d) — Article 128 — Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts — Action for infringement — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the action for infringement — Outcome of the counterclaim — Autonomous nature of the counterclaim)
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, jurisdiction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022463EN.01000901.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen
(Case C-256/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124(a) and (d) - Article 128 - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Action for infringement - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the action for infringement - Outcome of the counterclaim - Autonomous nature of the counterclaim)
(2022/C 463/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(a) and (d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark,
must be interpreted as meaning that an EU trade mark court hearing an action for infringement based on an EU trade mark the validity of which is challenged by means of a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity still has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of that mark, in spite of the withdrawal of the main action.


(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case C-355/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Article 10 — Corrective measures — Destruction of goods — Concept of ‘infringement of an intellectual property right’ — Goods bearing an EU trade mark)
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Economic Area, goods and services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022463EN.01000902.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/9






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA
(Case C-355/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 10 - Corrective measures - Destruction of goods - Concept of ‘infringement of an intellectual property right’ - Goods bearing an EU trade mark)
(2022/C 463/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k.

Defendant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,
must be interpreted as:
precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law according to which a protective measure in the form of the destruction of goods may not be applied to goods which have been manufactured and to which an EU trade mark has been affixed, with the consent of the proprietor of that mark, but which were placed on the market in the European Economic Area without his or her consent.


(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Case C-405/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 8 — Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term — Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier — Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive)
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2022463EN.01001101.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/11






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.
(Case C-405/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and Article 8 - Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term - Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier - Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive)
(2022/C 463/13)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FV

Defendant: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits a finding that a contractual term is unfair where it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, without, however, carrying out an examination, in such a case, of the requirement of ‘good faith’ within the meaning of Article 3(1).


(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
Case C-713/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(a) and (e) — Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State — Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency — Temporary work assignments — Intervening periods — Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments — Termination of the employment relationship)
Date: 2022-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, establishment, migrant worker, residence, social security, temporary employment, temporary employment agency, termination of employment, work contract








C_2022463EN.01000501.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
(Case C-713/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(a) and (e) - Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State - Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency - Temporary work assignments - Intervening periods - Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments - Termination of the employment relationship)
(2022/C 463/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, Y

Defendants: X, Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3)(a) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing in a Member State who carries out, through a temporary employment agency established in another Member State, temporary work assignments in the territory of that other Member State is to be subject, during the intervening periods between those temporary work assignments, to the national legislation of the Member State in which he or she resides, provided that, by reason of the temporary contract, the employment relationship ceases during those periods.


(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.