do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11151 – BDT / LGP / PROMACH) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 255/02
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: after-sales service, commercial bank, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging








C_2023255EN.01000201.xml










20.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11151 – BDT / LGP / PROMACH)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 255/02)
On 10 July 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 32023M11151. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-422/23, Daka: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 10 July 2023 — T.B.
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, discretionary power, higher court, judge, reassignment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202301275EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1275


11.12.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 10 July 2023 — T.B.
(Case C-422/23, Daka) (1)

(C/2023/1275)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: T.B.

Other parties to the proceedings: C.B. and D.B.

Questions referred







1.


In a situation in which national law provides that a judge of the court ruling at final instance (a Supreme Court judge) may, by a discretionary decision of the President of that Court (First President of the Supreme Court), be appointed, without his or her consent, to sit for a fixed period per year in another chamber of that Court having jurisdiction to hear cases the nature of which differs from those with which that judge has hitherto dealt, instead of in a chamber of that Court in which, in accordance with his or her training and areas of competence, he or she normally sits, should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), be interpreted as requiring that such a judge should, for the purpose of protecting his or her independence and autonomy, have an effective remedy against that decision before an independent and impartial tribunal in a procedure which satisfies the requirements of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter?










2.


Should [the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter] be construed as meaning that a court of final instance of a Member State (Supreme Court), whose collegial three-member composition includes two judges who, without their consent, have been appointed by the President of that Court to sit on that Court away from their home chamber and to sit in a chamber competent for hearing the case in question, and who have not previously had the opportunity to challenge their appointment before an impartial and independent tribunal in a procedure which satisfies the requirements of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, is not an independent, impartial tribunal previously established by law and giving individuals effective access to justice in areas covered by EU law?






(1)  This case has been given a fictitious name that does not correspond to the names of any of the parties to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1275/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11033 – ADOBE / FIGMA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 243/06
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, product design








C_2023243EN.01000901.xml










10.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11033 – ADOBE / FIGMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 243/06)

1.   
On 30 June 2023, 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:






—


Adobe Inc. (‘Adobe’, United States of America),










—


Figma, Inc. (‘Figma’, United States of America).




Adobe will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Figma.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.
The concentration has been referred to the Commission by Austria pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation. The referral was subsequently joined by Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.


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






—


Adobe: global software company offering, among others, creative design software and an interactive product design tool, i.e., Adobe XD,










—


Figma: provider of a web-based collaborative tool for interactive product design, Figma Design, as well as a whiteboarding tool, FigJam.






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.11033 – ADOBE / FIGMA
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’).
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 243/03
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, medical diagnosis








C_2023243EN.01000401.xml










10.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)


(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 243/03)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2023) 4355


3 July 2023


4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated (‘4-tert-OPnEO’)
EC No.-; CAS No.-


ABBOTT Ireland, Ballytivnan, ROI Sligo, Connaught, Ireland;
ABBOTT GmbH, Max Planck Ring 2, D-65205 Wiesbaden, Germany;
ABBOTT Diagnostics GmbH, Max Planck Ring 2, D-65205 Delkenheim, Germany


REACH/23/13/0
REACH/23/13/1


Industrial use as a surfactant in the formulation of in-vitro diagnostic devices for clinical testing using ARCHITECT, Alinity and ABBOTT PRISM automated analyser systems


4 January 2033


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.




REACH/23/13/2
REACH/23/13/3
REACH/23/13/4


Professional use as a surfactant in the final use of in-vitro diagnostic devices for clinical testing using ARCHITECT, Alinity and ABBOTT PRISM automated analyser systems


 




REACH/23/13/5


Industrial use as a surfactant in the formulation of system solutions (Pre-Trigger and Trigger), for use with in-vitro diagnostic devices on ARCHITECT and Alinity automated analyser system


4 January 2025




REACH/23/13/6


Industrial use as a surfactant in the extraction and purification of antigens for incorporation into in-vitro diagnostic devices for clinical testing using ARCHITECT, Alinity and ABBOTT PRISM automated analyser systems


4 January 2033






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).
Council Decision (EU) 2023/1456 of 10 July 2023 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Hungary, appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








L_2023179EN.01011301.xml










14.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 179/113








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2023/1456
of 10 July 2023
         
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 Hungary,


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

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of Ms Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ will expire on 31 August 2023.












(2)


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





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2029.


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




Done at Brussels, 10 July 2023.


For the Council


The President

P. NAVARRO RÍOS
            





(1)  Opinion of 1 June 2023 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 7 July 2023 2023/C 243/01
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023243EN.01000101.xml










10.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2023
(2023/C 243/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0888 




JPY


Japanese yen


156,01 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4515 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85298 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,9075 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9754 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7085 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,945 




HUF


Hungarian forint


388,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4838 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9557 




TRY


Turkish lira


28,3830 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6416 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4557 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5232 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7644 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4717 




KRW


South Korean won


1 421,91 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7915 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8773 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 521,26 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0842 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,495 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,358 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3527 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7883 




INR


Indian rupee


90,0465 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-375/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Di Prinzio v Parliament
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, legal basis, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU)








C_202300021EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/21


9.10.2023





Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Di Prinzio v Parliament
(Case T-375/23)
(C/2023/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Clara Di Prinzio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety, the measure of which the applicant was informed by the contested communication (File No D. 305484), adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance — and with which the European Parliament redetermined the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation — and notified by registered letter received on 25 May 2023;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






—


First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements by failing to state reasons and the consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










—


Second plea in law, alleging the lack of legal basis and a misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.










—


Third plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights, and the consequent infringement of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/21/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-378/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Indonesia, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), industrial manufacturing, originating product, sheet, steel








C_2023304EN.01002701.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/27






Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission
(Case T-378/23)
(2023/C 304/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marcegaglia Specialties SpA (Gazoldo degli Ippoliti, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.





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 Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian.
Case C-421/23, ONSS: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 July 2023 — Ministère public, Office National de Sécurité Sociale (ONSS) v EX
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, form, fraud, labour dispute, social security legislation, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation, wage earner








C_202300953EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/953


27.11.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 10 July 2023 — Ministère public, Office National de Sécurité Sociale (ONSS) v EX
(Case C-421/23, ONSS)
(C/2023/953)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants at first instance: Ministère public, Office National de Sécurité Sociale (ONSS)

Defendant at first instance: EX

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as applying in a situation where it has been held, without the point being contested by the parties, that, first, the A1 certificates produced are forged according to the judicial authorities of the host State and, second, the investigations duly carried out by the judicial authorities of that host State appear to show that the certificates at issue were not issued by the competent authority of the issuing State, even though social security contributions have been paid to that authority?










2.


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is the dialogue and conciliation procedure established by Article 76(6) of Regulation No 883/2004 (which reproduces the procedure provided for in Article 84a(3) of Regulation No 1408/71 (2)) an essential prerequisite for determining whether the conditions for the existence of a fraud are met?










3.


If the answers to the previous two questions are in the affirmative, in accordance with the principle of prohibition of fraud and abuse of rights, which is a general principle of EU law which individuals must comply with, may the authorities of the State in which the employees exercised their activity disregard the abovementioned A1 certificates, including in the absence of recourse to the dialogue and conciliation procedure in the event of suspicion of fraud, where the facts submitted for assessment by them support the conclusion that those certificates were produced as a result of conduct on the part of the employer which a judicial authority of the host State found to be fraudulent?






(1)  
            OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/953/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-423/23, Secab: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2023 — Secab Soc. coop. v Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA), Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, maximum price, price of energy, renewable energy, revenue








C_2023321EN.01003001.xml










11.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2023 — Secab Soc. coop. v Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA), Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA
(Case C-423/23, Secab)
(2023/C 321/37)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secab Soc. coop.

Defendants: Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA), Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 5(4) of Directive (EU) 2019/944, (1) recitals 3 and 12 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, (2) and recitals 27, 28, 29 and 39, Article 6(1) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 (3) preclude a national rule which sets a cap on market revenue obtained from the sale of electricity in the manner provided for in Article 15 bis of Decree-Law No 4 of 27 January 2022, which does not guarantee that producers may retain 10 % of their revenues above that cap?










2.


Do Article 5(4) of Directive (EU) 2019/944, recitals 2, 3 and 12 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, recitals 27, 28, 29 and 39, Article 6(1) and Article 8(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 preclude a national rule which sets a cap on market revenues obtained from the sale of electricity in the manner provided for in Article 15 bis of Decree-Law No 4 of 27 January 2022, which does not preserve and incentivise investments in the renewable energy sector?










3.


Do recital 3 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and recitals 27 and 41, Article 7(1)(h), (i) and (j) and Article 8(1)(a) and (d) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 preclude a national rule which sets a cap on market revenues obtained from the sale of electricity in the manner provided for in Article 15 bis of Decree-Law No 4 of 27 January 2022, which does not provide for any specific cap on the revenues obtained from the sale of energy produced from hard coal, or a regulation differentiating between different sources of production?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (recast) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 125).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (OJ 2018 L 328, p. 82).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (OJ 2022 L 261, p. 1).