do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (EU) 2022/2248 of 14 November 2022 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Lithuania, appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








L_2022295EN.01004701.xml










16.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 295/47








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/2248
of 14 November 2022
         
appointing a member of the Court of Auditors


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal by the Republic of Lithuania,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of Mr Rimantas ŠADŽIUS expired on 15 June 2022.












(2)


A member should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 16 November 2022 to 15 November 2028.


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




Done at Brussels, 14 November 2022.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Opinion of 18 October 2022 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Case T-707/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Ostrava v Commission
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023035EN.01006602.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/66






Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Ostrava v Commission
(Case T-707/22)
(2023/C 35/84)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Ostrava — Trading e Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10906 – INFRAVIA / LIBERTY GLOBAL / TELEFÓNICA / OPAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 464/02
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, cable distribution, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, mobile communication, provision of services, transmission network








C_2022464EN.01000201.xml










6.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 464/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10906 – INFRAVIA / LIBERTY GLOBAL / TELEFÓNICA / OPAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 464/02)
On 14 November 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 32022M10906. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-716/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Administradora Fortaleza and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023035EN.01006901.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/69






Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Administradora Fortaleza and Others v Commission
(Case T-716/22)
(2023/C 35/89)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Administradora Fortaleza Ltda (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision for a failure to state adequate reasons, or to the extent that they are applied to ‘sociedades gestoras de participações sociais’ (holding companies) or as a result of income being received from a source outside the outermost region;










—


order the defendant institution to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Case C-669/21, Gencoal: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim — Portugal) — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Absence of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, equal treatment, establishment, tax law, tax rebate








C_2023104EN.01001201.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/12






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim — Portugal) — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT
(Case C-669/21, (1) Gencoal)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Absence of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2023/C 104/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gencoal S.A.

Defendants: Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT

Other party: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (District Court, Oporto — Central Civil Court No 5, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal), made by decision of 21 October 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  
            OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2243 of 14 November 2022 launching the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine)
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU military mission, Ukraine, military cooperation, military personnel, military training








L_2022294EN.01002101.xml










15.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 294/21








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2022/2243
of 14 November 2022
         
launching the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968 of 17 October 2022 on a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine) (1),


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968.












(2)


On 8 November 2022, the Political and Security Committee agreed that the Mission Plan for EUMAM Ukraine should be approved.












(3)


Following the recommendation of the EU Mission Commander for EUMAM Ukraine, EUMAM Ukraine should be launched on 15 November 2022,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Mission Plan for EUMAM Ukraine is hereby approved.


Article 2
EUMAM Ukraine shall be launched on 15 November 2022.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 14 November 2022.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  
            OJ L 270, 18.10.2022, p. 85.
Case T-714/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, ownership, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023024EN.01005901.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/59






Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission
(Case T-714/22)
(2023/C 24/82)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Nutmark Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vidal Matos and F. Lança Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (JO 2022, L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the incorrect identification of the reference system, in breach of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 107(1) and 263 TFEU.
Second plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the failure to demonstrate that Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free-Trade Zone) amounts to a derogation from the reference tax system which establishes differences between economic operators that are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment relating to the fulfilment of the requirements for the correct implementation of Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira, in that the Portuguese Republic adopted, for that purpose, criteria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.
Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and security laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.
Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the right to private property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 November 2022 2022/C 431/04
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2022431EN.01000401.xml










14.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 November 2022
(2022/C 431/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0308 




JPY


Japanese yen


143,89 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4384 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87538 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7241 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9844 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2635 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,278 




HUF


Hungarian forint


402,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6765 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8940 




TRY


Turkish lira


19,0987 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5459 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3698 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0758 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7020 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4199 




KRW


South Korean won


1 359,20 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7944 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3267 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5445 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 979,45 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7700 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,106 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,088 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5147 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0239 




INR


Indian rupee


83,2253 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-713/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Portumo Madeira and Others v Commission
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, regional aid, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023063EN.01005401.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/54






Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Portumo Madeira and Others v Commission
(Case T-713/22)
(2023/C 63/71)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicants: Portumo — Madeira — Montagem e Manutenção de Tubaria SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal), Ponticelli — Consultadoria Técnica SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal), Ponticelli Angoil — Serviços Para a Indústria Petrolífera SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and P. Casillas Vázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550); (1)











—


in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein, due to the incorrect method used to determine the basis of the aid;










—


order the defendant institution to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that, by interpreting the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’ and ‘job creation/maintenance in the region’ restrictively, the Commission infringed Commission Decision of 27 June 2007 in Case N421/2006 and Commission Decision of 2 July 2013 in Case SA.34160 (2011/N), as well as the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013, Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, and Articles 21, 45, 49, 54 and 56 TFEU.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU for failing to state directly that the aid scheme was compatible on the same basis.
Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the recovery order contained therein infringes Article 16(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that it contravenes to the general principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the calculation of the taxable base of the alleged State aid is incorrect.


(1)  OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10953 – ADD / TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 438/04
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, petroleum product, retail selling








C_2022438EN.01000401.xml










18.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 438/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10953 – ADD / TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 438/04)
On 14 November 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 32022M10953. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2265 of 14 November 2022 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ (PGI))
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Northern Aegean, designation of origin, goatmeat, labelling, product designation








L_2022300EN.01000301.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 300/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/2265
of 14 November 2022
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1 – Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 November 2022.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 281, 22.7.2022, p. 12.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-718/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Eutelsat Madeira v Commission
Date: 2022-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Madeira, Portugal, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2023024EN.01006101.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/61






Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Eutelsat Madeira v Commission
(Case T-718/22)
(2023/C 24/84)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Eutelsat Madeira, Unipessoal Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Caniçal, Portugal) (represented by: R. Bordalo Junqueiro, J.P. Lampreia, R.F. Costa and P.G. Marques, advogados)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


recognise that the applicant has a legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU;










—


consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;










—


annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decision alters the terms of an aid scheme authorised and consistently implemented for several decades.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment in so far as the contested decision treats equally the beneficiaries that contributed towards the attainment of the objectives of Regime III and those that did not.
Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the compatibility of Regime III of the Zona Franca de Madeira (Madeira Free Zone) with Commission Decision C(2007) 3037 final and the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013.