do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-178/23, ERB New Europe Funding II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — ERB New Europe Funding II v YI
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, consumer credit, consumer protection, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_2023278EN.01001501.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — ERB New Europe Funding II v YI
(Case C-178/23, ERB New Europe Funding II)
(2023/C 278/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant for revision: ERB New Europe Funding II

Respondent: YI

Question referred

When applying the provisions of Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in the light of, in particular, the twenty-third recital of that directive and the principle of effectiveness, must those provisions be interpreted as not precluding the possibility for a national court to examine suspicions concerning the unfair nature of contractual terms stipulated in an agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, even when they have previously been examined by another national court in judicial proceedings at first instance at the request of the consumer, who did not attend the related hearing and was not properly assisted or represented by a lawyer, and have been rejected by a judicial decision which has never been challenged by the consumer — [and] which has, therefore, acquired, in the domestic procedural order, the force of res judicata — if, from the particular circumstances of the case, it appears, in a plausible and reasonable manner, that that consumer did not make use of the legal remedy in those first judicial proceedings because of his or her limited knowledge or information?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-172/23: Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, environmental risk prevention, infringement of EU law, invasive species








C_2023173EN.01002502.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/25






Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-172/23)
(2023/C 173/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans for all identified priority pathways and to transmit them to the Commission without delay;










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation 1143/2014, Ireland had three years from the adoption of the Union list to establish, implement and transmit to the Commission action plans to address the priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species of Union concern identified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 1143/2014. The Commission had adopted the Union list referred to in Article 13 of Regulation 1143/2014 on 13 July 2016 so that the three years deadline expired on 13 July 2019.
Ireland identified three priority pathways (angling, recreational boating and transportation of habitat material) pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Regulation.
However, Ireland has established and transmitted to the Commission action plans for only two out of the three identified priority pathways.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.
Council Decision of 21 March 2023 appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Estonia 2023/C 109/02
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Estonia, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, free movement of workers




C_2023109EN.01006901.xml










24.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/69






COUNCIL DECISION
of 21 March 2023
appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Estonia
(2023/C 109/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1), and in particular Articles 23 and 24 thereof,
Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decisions of 20 September 2022 (2) and 25 October 2022 (3), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2022 to 24 September 2024.










(2)


The Government of Estonia has submitted a nomination for a post to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following person is hereby appointed member of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period ending on 24 September 2024:






I.


EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVES






Member State


Member




Estonia


Mr Jüri SULIN










Article 2
The members and alternate members not yet nominated will be appointed by the Council at a later date.


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


Done at Brussels, 21 March 2023.


For the Council


The President

J. ROSWALL




(1)  OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 20 September 2022 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers (OJ C 393, 13.10.2022, p. 5).

(3)  Council Decision of 25 October 2022 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Denmark, Germany, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal (OJ C 481, 19.12.2022, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 March 2023 2023/C 105/08
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023105EN.01001401.xml










21.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 105/14






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 March 2023
(2023/C 105/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0717 




JPY


Japanese yen


140,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4450 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87560 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1564 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9928 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,4210 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,988 




HUF


Hungarian forint


399,21 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,7045 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9233 




TRY


Turkish lira


20,3838 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5978 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4669 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4038 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7106 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4354 




KRW


South Korean won


1 401,82 




ZAR


South African rand


19,7861 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3739 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 453,38 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8076 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,281 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,513 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,6183 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,3003 




INR


Indian rupee


88,4900 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-174/23, Twenty First Capital: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 March 2023 — HJ, IK, LM v Twenty First Capital S.A.S.
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: UCITS fund, alternative investment, approximation of laws, directive (EU), financial market, manager, national implementing measure, remuneration of work








C_2023223EN.01001301.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 March 2023 — HJ, IK, LM v Twenty First Capital S.A.S.
(Case C-174/23, Twenty First Capital)
(2023/C 223/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: HJ, IK, LM

Defendant: Twenty First Capital S.A.S.

Questions referred







1.








a)


Are Articles 13 and 61(1) of Directive No 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) 1095/2010 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that managers performing activities under the Directive before 22 July 2013 are required to comply with the obligations relating to remuneration policies and practices:






i)


at the expiry of the period for transposition of that directive,










ii)


at the date of entry into force of the provisions transposing the Directive into national law,










iii)


from the expiry of the period of one year, expiring on 21 July 2014, referred to in Article 61(1); or










iv)


from the time of obtaining authorisation as manager under the Directive?














b)


Does the answer to this question depend on whether the remuneration paid by the alternative investment fund manager to an employee or a director was agreed before or after:






i)


the expiry of the period for transposition of that directive;










ii)


the date of entry into force of the provisions transposing the Directive into national law;










iii)


the expiry on 21 July 2014 of the period laid down in Article 61(1) of the Directive;










iv)


the date on which the alternative investment fund manager obtained its authorisation?


















2.


If it follows from the answer to Question (1) that, following the transposition of the Directive into national law, an alternative investment fund manager is, for a certain period of time, only obliged to make its best efforts to comply with the national legislation resulting from this Directive, does it fulfil that obligation if, during that period, it hires an employee or appoints a director on terms of remuneration which do not comply with the requirements of the national provision transposing Article 13 of the Directive?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 174, p. 1.
Case C-179/23, Credidam: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (Credidam) v Guvernul României, Ministerul Finanțelor
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, copyright, organisation, pay, provision of services








C_2023235EN.01001001.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (Credidam) v Guvernul României, Ministerul Finanțelor
(Case C-179/23, Credidam)
(2023/C 235/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants in cassation — Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Finanțelor

Respondent in cassation — Applicant: Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (Credidam)

Questions referred







1.


Does the collection, distribution and payment of remuneration by collective management organisations, in return for a fee, constitute a supply of services, within the meaning of Article 24(1) and Article 25(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (the VAT directive), to copyright holders and holders of related rights?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the work that collective management organisations do for rights holders constitute a supply of services within the meaning of the VAT directive even if the rights holders, on whose behalf collective management organisations collect remuneration, are not deemed to be providing a service to the users who are required to pay that remuneration?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-181/23: Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, direct investment, infringement of EU law, naturalisation, payment, service








C_2023173EN.01002701.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/27






Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
(Case C-181/23)
(2023/C 173/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ladenburger, E. Montaguti, J. Tomkin, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by establishing and operating an institutionalised programme, such as, the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment based on Article 10(9) of the Maltese Citizenship Act as amended by the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020, and the Granting of citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020, that offers naturalisation in the absence of a genuine link of the applicants with the country, in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU;










—


order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an amendment to the Maltese Citizenship Act in November 2013, Malta introduced its first investor citizenship programme in 2014.
The 2014 Scheme was subsequently replaced in 2020 by the ‘Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment’ programme. The new scheme was established by the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020 and the Granting of Citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020.
Union law precludes national citizenship investor schemes that allow for the systematic granting of nationality of a Member State in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments in the absence of a requirement for a genuine link between the State and the individuals concerned.
The Commission considers that the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment scheme (2020) constitutes such an unlawful citizenship investor scheme. By establishing and maintaining such a scheme, Malta compromises and undermines the essence and integrity of Union citizenship in breach of Article 20 TFEU and in violation of the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entity to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/646 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/645 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply 2023/C 105/06
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2023105EN.01001101.xml










21.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 105/11






Notice for the attention of the persons and entity to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/646 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/645 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply
(2023/C 105/06)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entity that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/646 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/645 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.
The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons and entity should be included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.
The attention of the persons and entity 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 in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons and entity concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 January 2024, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
The attention of the persons and entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 80 I, 20.3.2023 p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 80 I, 20.3.2023 p. 1.
Council Decision of 21 March 2023 appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Denmark 2023/C 109/03
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Denmark, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational safety




C_2023109EN.01007101.xml










24.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/71






COUNCIL DECISION
of 21 March 2023
appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Denmark
(2023/C 109/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decision of 24 February 2022 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2025.










(2)


The Government of Denmark has submitted a nomination for a post to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following person is hereby appointed alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2025:
I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES






Member State


Alternate member




Denmark


Mr Ulrik SPANNOW






Article 2
The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.


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


Done at Brussels, 21 March 2023.


For the Council


The President

J. ROSWALL




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 24 February 2022 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 92, 25.2.2022, p. 1).
Case C-176/23, Raiffeisen Bank: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — UG v SC Raiffeisen Bank SA
Date: 2023-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_2023278EN.01001401.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — UG v SC Raiffeisen Bank SA
(Case C-176/23, Raiffeisen Bank)
(2023/C 278/21)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and applicant at first instance: UG

Respondent and defendant at first instance: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

Questions referred







(1)


When applying the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) transposed into national law by the provisions of Article 3(2) of Legea nr. 193/2000, republicată, privind clauzele abuzive în contractele încheiate între profesioniști și consumatori (Law No 193/2000, republished, on unfair terms in contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers), in the light of, in particular, the twelfth and thirteenth recitals of that directive, but also taking into account the provisions of Articles 80 and 81 of Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului (OUG) nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori (Government Emergency Order No 50/2010 concerning consumer credit agreements; ‘OUG No 50/2010’), must those provisions be interpreted as not precluding national courts from also examining suspicions concerning the unfair nature of contractual terms stipulated in supplementary agreements to credit agreements concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers before the aforementioned act having the force of law came into effect, that is to say, pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 of OUG No 50/2010, regardless of whether those terms have been expressly accepted by the consumer in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 or whether they have been considered tacitly accepted by law in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(3) of OUG No 50/2010?










(2)


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the [referring] court also asks: would it be at odds [with the possibility referred to in Question 1], in light of the background set out above and the circumstances of the dispute pending before it, for there to be a line of case-law of the national courts establishing that express acceptance of a supplementary agreement drawn up in the manner provided for by Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 and pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 thereof automatically leads to the conclusion that [that supplementary agreement] has been negotiated and, consequently, there can be no examination of any suspicions that the terms stipulated within it are unfair?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).