do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2022/2434 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 as regards the establishment of a diversified funding strategy as a general borrowing method (Official Journal of the European Union L 319 of 13 December 2022)
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU borrowing, EU financing arrangements, EU strategy, Ukraine, financial aid, financial management, general budget (EU)








L_2023084EN.01002601.xml










23.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 84/26







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2022/2434 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 as regards the establishment of a diversified funding strategy as a general borrowing method

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 319 of 13 December 2022
)


On page 3, recital 12:
for:







‘(12)


In the interest of legal certainty and clarity in respect of already granted financial assistance and in respect of financial assistance under Regulation (EU) …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023 (macro-financial assistance +) (7), this Regulation should only apply to programmes of financial assistance the basic acts of which enter into force on or after 9 November 2022.





read:







‘(12)


In the interest of legal certainty and clarity in respect of already granted financial assistance and in respect of financial assistance under Regulation (EU) 2022/2463 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), this Regulation should only apply to programmes of financial assistance the basic acts of which enter into force on or after 9 November 2022.







(7)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.’,

(7)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2463 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing an instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023 (macro-financial assistance +) (OJ L 322, 16.12.2022, p. 1).’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10738 – LEAR / IG BAUERHIN) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 107/07
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2023107EN.01006701.xml










23.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/67






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10738 – LEAR / IG BAUERHIN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 107/07)

1.   
On 15 March 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Lear Corporation (‘Lear’, USA),










—


IG Bauerhin GmbH (‘IGB’, Germany).




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


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






—


Lear is a supplier of automotive seating (including just-in-time assembly of complete seat systems, and seat thermal heat mats and ventilation components), wire harnesses and electronics to major automotive companies,










—


IGB is a supplier of automotive components, such as seat thermal heat mats, seat ventilation systems, interior surface heaters, steering wheel heaters and sensors, seat sensors, and electronic control modules.






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.10738 – LEAR / IG BAUERHIN
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
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’).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht in the case of A Ltd v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Case E-2/23) 2023/C 288/03
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, financial solvency, financial supervision, insurance company, shareholding








C_2023288EN.01000301.xml










17.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/3






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht in the case of A Ltd v Finanzmarktaufsicht
(Case E-2/23)
(2023/C 288/03)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 23 March 2023 from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 March 2023, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of A Ltd v Finanzmarktaufsicht on the following questions:






1.


How must the terms ‘suitability’ and ‘reputation’ be interpreted for the purposes of Article 59(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision No 78/2011 of the EEA Joint Committee of 27 November 2012, LGBl. 2012/384? Is it thereby intended to refer only to the integrity or also to the professional suitability of the proposed acquirer?










2.


In the appraisal of the financial soundness of the proposed acquirer within the meaning of Article 59(1)(c) of the Directive mentioned may it also be taken into account that any necessary supply of funds by that person to the insurance undertaking is ensured through the provision of a bank guarantee or the making available of funds on a trust account which may be drawn on by the insurance undertaking at any time?










3.


How must the words ‘reasonable grounds’ be interpreted for the purposes of Article 59(2) of the Directive mentioned? Is for these purposes certainty of non-compliance with the statutory requirements necessary or are substantiated doubts sufficient?










4.


Does a declaration made by the competent authority, here: by the Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, pursuant to Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 48, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision No 200/2016 of the EEA Joint Committee of 30 September 2016, LGBl. 2016/303, to make every effort to comply with guidelines, here: Joint Guidelines on the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases of qualifying holdings in the financial sector, JC/GL/2016/01, have a binding effect on the courts of the Member States so that the latter are also obliged to make every effort to comply with these guidelines?
Case T-156/23: Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Poland v European Commission
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of members, courts and tribunals, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, right to justice, sanction (EU), separation of powers








C_2023173EN.01003601.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/36






Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Poland v European Commission
(Case T-156/23)
(2023/C 173/47)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission contained in the letter of 13 January 2023 (1) relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878), with regard to the period from 30 August to 28 October 2022;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation 2018/1046, (2) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting despite the fact that the order of 27 October 2021 imposed daily penalties during the period until the date of compliance with the order of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and, on 15 July 2022, the provisions the suspension of whose application was required by the order of 14 July 2021 ceased to apply.


(1)  Letter from the European Commission dated 13 January 2023, Ref. ARES(2023)240070.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
Case C-640/20 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2023 — PV v European Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Psychological harassment — Medical opinions — Unjustified absences — Remuneration — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 11a — Conflict of interests — Article 21a — Manifestly illegal order — Article 23 — Compliance with laws and police regulations — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post — Withdrawal of removal — New disciplinary procedure — Fresh removal from post)
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: absenteeism, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, harassment at work, labour dispute, medical report, psychological harassment, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023173EN.01000201.xml










15.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2023 — PV v European Commission
(Case C-640/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Psychological harassment - Medical opinions - Unjustified absences - Remuneration - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 11a - Conflict of interests - Article 21a - Manifestly illegal order - Article 23 - Compliance with laws and police regulations - Disciplinary procedure - Removal from post - Withdrawal of removal - New disciplinary procedure - Fresh removal from post)
(2023/C 173/02)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: PV (represented by: D. Birkenmaier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: T.S. Bohr, B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, and subsequently by T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders PV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA
Date: 2023-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, award of contract, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, public procurement, right of establishment, services contract








C_2023216EN.01002601.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA
(Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi)
(2023/C 216/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

Respondent: Consip SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 16, 49, 50 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 TEU, and the principles of proportionality, competition, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49, 50, 54 and 56 TFEU preclude national rules (Articles 38(1)(f), 48 and 75 of decreto legislativo n. 163 (Legislative Decree No 163) of 2006) which provide for the application of the penalty of forfeiture of the provisional security, as an automatic consequence of the exclusion of an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public service contract, even though that economic operator has already been the addressee, in relation to the same single conduct, of another penalty determined following a specific procedure initiated by another competent authority of the same Member State?