do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 9 January 2023 2023/C 8/01
Date: 2023-01-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023008EN.01000101.xml










10.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 January 2023
(2023/C 8/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0696 




JPY


Japanese yen


141,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4374 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88048 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1960 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9865 




ISK


Iceland króna


153,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6108 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,990 




HUF


Hungarian forint


397,25 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6963 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9253 




TRY


Turkish lira


20,0824 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5446 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4299 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3508 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6741 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4244 




KRW


South Korean won


1 330,37 




ZAR


South African rand


18,2059 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2546 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 661,92 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6800 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,946 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


35,789 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,6475 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,4825 




INR


Indian rupee


88,0780 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-469/22: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Fundação do Desporto, ANO — Sistemas de Informática e Serviços Lda, Link Consulting — Tecnologias de Informação SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Conduct of the procedure — Choice of participants and award of contracts — Article 63 — Economic operator relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Obligation of that economic operator to submit the qualification documents of a subcontractor after the tender has been awarded — Incompatibility)
Date: 2023-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, public procurement, subcontracting, tendering








C_2023071EN.01001401.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/14






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Fundação do Desporto, ANO — Sistemas de Informática e Serviços Lda, Link Consulting — Tecnologias de Informação SA
(Case C-469/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the procedure - Choice of participants and award of contracts - Article 63 - Economic operator relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Obligation of that economic operator to submit the qualification documents of a subcontractor after the tender has been awarded - Incompatibility)
(2023/C 71/16)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA

Defendants: Fundação do Desporto, ANO — Sistemas de Informática e Serviços Lda, Link Consulting — Tecnologias de Informação SA

Operative part of the order

Article 63 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, read in conjunction with Article 59 and recital 84 of that directive,
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an economic operator which intends to use the capacities of another entity in order to perform the contract is required to submit the qualification documents of that entity and the declaration of commitment it has made only after the contract in question has been awarded.


(1)  Date lodged: 13.7.2022.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10859 – TRAFIGURA / ECOBAT RESOURCES STOLBERG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 8/02
Date: 2023-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, by-product, economic concentration, lead, merger control, metalwork, mining product, petroleum, primary product








C_2023008EN.01000201.xml










10.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/2






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10859 – TRAFIGURA / ECOBAT RESOURCES STOLBERG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 8/02)

1.   
On 22 December 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:






—


Trafigura Group Pte Limited (‘Trafigura’, Singapore),










—


Ecobat Resources Stolberg GmbH (‘ERS’, Germany), currently controlled by Ecobat LLC (‘Ecobat’, Germany).




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


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






—


Trafigura is an independent commodity trader, specialising in the oil, minerals and metals markets at global level,










—


ERS owns a lead smelting facility in Stolberg, Germany that produces lead metal, as well as other base and precious metals including doré silver and sulphuric acid, recovered as by-products of the lead smelting process.






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 no later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10859 – TRAFIGURA / ECOBAT RESOURCES STOLBERG
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’).
Case C-7/23, Marvesa Rotterdam: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 10 January 2023 — Marvesa Rotterdam NV v Federaal Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de voedselketen (FAVV)
Date: 2023-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, animal feedingstuffs, fishery product, health control, human nutrition, import (EU), originating product, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, veterinary inspection








C_2023189EN.01000702.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 10 January 2023 — Marvesa Rotterdam NV v Federaal Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de voedselketen (FAVV)
(Case C-7/23, Marvesa Rotterdam)
(2023/C 189/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marvesa Rotterdam NV

Defendant: Federaal Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de voedselketen (FAVV)

Questions referred







1.


Is Part I of the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC (1) concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China, as amended by Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1068 (2) amending Decision 2002/994/EC concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China, to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fishery products’ covers both products intended for human consumption and products intended for animal consumption, and that, therefore, fish oil intended for animal feed use can be regarded as a ‘fishery product’ within the meaning of the abovementioned annex?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Part I of the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC … infringe Article 22(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC (3) of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, where appropriate read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol (No 2) to the TFEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in that fishery products for human consumption originating from China are exempt from the import ban laid down in Article 2 of Decision 2002/994/EC, whereas fishery products for animal consumption originating from China are subject to that import ban?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 348, p. 154.

(2)  OJ 2015 L 174, p. 30.

(3)  OJ 1998 L 24, p. 9.
Case T-5/23: Action brought on 10 January 2023 — Illumina v Commission
Date: 2023-01-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract, delegation of power, economic concentration, financing, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, principle of proportionality, recruitment








C_2023063EN.01006701.xml










20.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/67






Action brought on 10 January 2023 — Illumina v Commission
(Case T-5/23)
(2023/C 63/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Illumina, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister-at-Law, and F. González Díaz, M. Siragusa and T. Spolidoro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2022 in Case M.10938 — Illumina/GRAIL (the Decision);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Decision erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in finding that the conditions for adopting interim measures ex Article 8(5)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger Regulation) were met.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is disproportionate, commits errors of facts and assessment, fails to provide sufficient reasons, and/or is vitiated by lack of motivation, in finding that the interim measures were necessary and appropriate to the objectives of Article 8(5)(c) of the Merger Regulation).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s provisions on funding are disproportionate as they unduly restrict Illumina’s ability to review the proportionality of funding requests.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision unlawfully delegates the Commission’s enforcement powers to a monitoring trustee and requires the applicant to bear the costs associated with the monitoring trustee’s activities.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision disproportionately excludes the applicant’s pre-existing contractual obligations from exceptions to ring-fencing obligations, and fails to provide adequate reasons for this exclusion.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision imposes excessive, disproportionate, and likely unenforceable restraints on the Parties’ recruitment activities during the interim period.






(1)  OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1.