do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 24 May 2023 2023/C 183/01
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023183EN.01000101.xml










25.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 May 2023
(2023/C 183/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0785 




JPY


Japanese yen


149,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4477 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86993 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,5103 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9732 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,8175 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,671 




HUF


Hungarian forint


372,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4900 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9614 




TRY


Turkish lira


21,4487 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6402 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4600 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4462 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7582 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4526 




KRW


South Korean won


1 421,92 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7479 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6005 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 063,50 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9536 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,068 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,171 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3397 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,2493 




INR


Indian rupee


89,1473 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (Official Journal of the European Union L 57 of 18 February 2021)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU financing arrangements, coronavirus disease, economic and social cohesion, economic recovery, economic reform, epidemic, investment, structural adjustment




L_2023137EN.01007101.xml










25.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 137/71







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 57 of 18 February 2021
)


On page 46, Article 24(6):
for:


‘6.   Where, as a result of the assessment referred to in paragraph 5, the Commission establishes that the milestones and targets set out in the Council implementing decision referred to in Article 20(1) have not been satisfactorily fulfilled, …’,


read:


‘6.   Where, as a result of the assessment referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission establishes that the milestones and targets set out in the Council implementing decision referred to in Article 20(1) have not been satisfactorily fulfilled, …’.
Case C-368/22, Danish Fluid System Technologies: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 7307 — Tube or pipe fittings — Subheading 7307 22 10 — Sleeves)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, iron and steel product, piping, specification of tariff heading, tube








C_2023252EN.01001001.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/10






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S
(Case C-368/22, (1) Danish Fluid System Technologies)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 7307 - Tube or pipe fittings - Subheading 7307 22 10 - Sleeves)
(2023/C 252/10)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 7307 22 10 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010,
must be interpreted as meaning that stainless steel tube or pipe fittings, other than cast fittings, which have an external thread and do not constitute short tube sections with an interior thread, used to join two tubes by screwing them into that fitting or by simply pushing them into that fitting, cannot be regarded as being ‘sleeves’ coming under that subheading.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.8.2022.
Case C-324/23, Myszak: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2023 — OF, EI, RI v M.K., syndykowi masy upadłości Getin Noble Bank S.A. w upadłości (uprzednio Getin Noble Bank S.A.)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, company in difficulties, consumer credit, credit institution, financial solvency, interest, principle of proportionality, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_202400619EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/619


15.1.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2023 — OF, EI, RI v M.K., syndykowi masy upadłości Getin Noble Bank S.A. w upadłości (uprzednio Getin Noble Bank S.A.)
(Case C-324/23, Myszak) (1)

(C/2024/619)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: OF, EI, RI

Defendants: M.K., syndyk masy upadłości Getin Noble Bank S.A. w upadłości (uprzednio Getin Noble Bank S.A.)

Question referred

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) in the light of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality, and also Articles 34(1)(b) and (g) and 70(1) and (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, (3) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in relation to a bank against which special resolution has been initiated, it is not permissible to grant a consumer’s application for an interim measure (securing of the action) suspending, during the course of the court proceedings, the obligation to pay the capital and interest instalments under the loan agreement, which is likely to be declared invalid by a court as a result of the removal of unfair contractual terms from it, on the sole ground that that bank has been put under special resolution?


(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(3)  
            OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/619/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-114/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — fictitious acquisition): Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct VAT — Refusal — Refusal based on the invalidity of the transaction under national civil law)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, civil law, commercial transaction, tax evasion, tax relief








C_2023252EN.01000801.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/8






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. sp. z o.o.
(Case C-114/22, (1) Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — fictitious acquisition))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Refusal based on the invalidity of the transaction under national civil law)
(2023/C 252/07)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Respondent: W. sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person is deprived of the right to deduct input value added tax solely because a taxable economic transaction is regarded as fictitious and invalid under the provisions of national civil law, without it being necessary to establish that the criteria for classifying, under EU law, that transaction as fictitious are met or, where that transaction has actually been carried out, that it is the result of value added tax evasion or abuse of rights.


(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.
Case C-364/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return): Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(d) — Procedure for examining an application for international protection — Inadmissible applications — Subsequent application — Voluntary return and removal)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, foreign national, international protection, removal, right of asylum








C_2023252EN.01000902.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/9






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-364/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(d) - Procedure for examining an application for international protection - Inadmissible applications - Subsequent application - Voluntary return and removal)
(2023/C 252/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B.,

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection
must be interpreted as not precluding the rejection of a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible irrespective of (i) the fact that the applicant returned to his or her country of origin after his or her application for international protection was refused and before he or she made that subsequent application for international protection and (ii) whether that return was voluntary or forced.










2.


Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32
must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from rejecting a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible where the decision on the previous application did not concern the granting of subsidiary protection status, but was adopted following an examination of the existence of grounds prohibiting removal and that examination is comparable, in substance, to the examination carried out with a view to granting that status.






(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.
Case T-286/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — OT v Council
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, territorial dispute








C_2023252EN.01006901.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/69






Action brought on 25 May 2023 — OT v Council
(Case T-286/23)
(2023/C 252/83)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, C. Sand and P. Blanchetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council [Implementing Regulation (EU)] 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


consequently, order the Council to remove the applicant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 14 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine;










—


order the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts.










2.


Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of points (d) and (g) of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 269/2014, inasmuch as that text undermines the values of freedom and the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 [TEU], as well as the principles of foreseeability of European Union acts and of proportionality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy.
Case C-290/21, AKM (Provision of satellite package in Austria): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission — Directive 93/83/EEC — Article 1(2) — Communication to the public by satellite — Concept — Satellite package provider — Broadcasting of programmes in another Member State — Place of the act of exploitation by which that provider participates in such communication)
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, copyright, satellite communications, television








C_2023252EN.01000401.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl
(Case C-290/21, (1) AKM (Provision of satellite package in Austria))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission - Directive 93/83/EEC - Article 1(2) - Communication to the public by satellite - Concept - Satellite package provider - Broadcasting of programmes in another Member State - Place of the act of exploitation by which that provider participates in such communication)
(2023/C 252/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM)

Defendant: Canal+ Luxembourg Sàrl

Interveners in support of the defendant: Tele 5 TM-TV GmbH, Österreichische Rundfunksender GmbH & Co. KG, Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 PULS 4 GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a satellite package provider is required to obtain, for the communication to the public by satellite in which it participates, the authorisation of the holders of the copyright and related rights concerned, that authorisation must be obtained, such as that granted to the broadcasting organisation concerned, only in the Member State in which the programme-carrying signals are introduced into the chain of communication leading to the satellite.


(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11111 – UBS / CREDIT SUISSE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 318/01
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Switzerland, banking, economic concentration, financial services, investment bank, merger control, provision of services








C_2023318EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/1







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11111 – UBS / CREDIT SUISSE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 318/01)

On 25 May 2023, 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11111. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-326/23, Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2023 — C.W.S.A. and Others v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
Date: 2023-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appointment of staff, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice, separation of powers








C_202400620EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/620


15.1.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2023 — C.W.S.A. and Others v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
(Case C-326/23, Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów)
(C/2024/620)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: C.W.S.A. and Others

Respondent: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Other parties: L. S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the court hearing the case is required to disregard an act (application) of a party seeking to challenge the appointment of a judge, which is not subject to judicial review under national and EU law, by calling into question the capacity of that judge to adjudicate — a challenge which is not admissible under EU law and the constitution of a Member State owing to the lack of a connection between the circumstances of the procedure for appointing that judge and the circumstances of the case in question and the lack of any actual grounds for calling into question his or her impartiality and independence on the basis of circumstances other than the lawfulness of the procedure for appointing that judge called into question by the party concerned, including the conduct of that judge after his or her appointment and his or her susceptibility to influence from the legislature or executive, which, under national law, makes such an act by the party concerned equivalent to an inadmissible actio popularis and constitutes a flagrant and manifest abuse of national procedural law?










2.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that an effective and adequate mechanism for satisfying the criteria relating to a court established by law within the meaning of EU law is to confer on the parties the right under national law to request verification of the effect of all the circumstances surrounding the appointment procedure and the conduct of the judge after his or her appointment on his or her impartiality and independence in the case in question, in the context of a ‘test of impartiality’ or an application for recusal of the judge?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/620/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)