do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates – 10 January 2024
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202400634EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/634


11.1.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            10 January 2024
         
(C/2024/634)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0946 




JPY


Japanese yen


159,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4582 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86023 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1970 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9336 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,2915 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,562 




HUF


Hungarian forint


378,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3410 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9728 




TRY


Turkish lira


32,8087 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6334 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4649 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5602 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7567 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4573 




KRW


South Korean won


1 443,77 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4139 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8476 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 032,14 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0806 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,593 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,338 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3508 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5983 




INR


Indian rupee


90,8755 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/634/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-433/22, HPA — Construções: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v HPA — Construções SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Annex IV — Point 2 — Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the renovation and repairing of private dwellings — Definition of ‘private dwellings’)
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, building industry, housing, improvement of housing, maintenance, provision of services, tax relief, work








C_202401507EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1507


26.2.2024





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v HPA — Construções SA
(Case C-433/22, (1) HPA — Construções)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Annex IV - Point 2 - Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the renovation and repairing of private dwellings - Definition of ‘private dwellings’)
(C/2024/1507)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: HPA — Construções SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the application of a reduced rate of VAT to services relating to the renovation and repair of private dwellings on condition that the dwellings concerned are actually used for residential purposes at the time when those works are carried out.


(1)  
            OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1507/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-19/24 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2024 by Feed SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-27/23, Feed v EUIPO – The Feed.com (THE FEED)
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, electronic commerce, food supplement, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_202403436EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3436


10.6.2024






Appeal brought on 11 January 2024 by Feed SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 December 2023 in Case T-27/23, Feed v EUIPO – The Feed.com (THE FEED)


(Case C-19/24 P)

(C/2024/3436)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Feed SA (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, avocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, The Feed.com, Inc.
By order of 24 April 2024, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3436/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-17/24, Ceram Tec: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 January 2024 – CeramTec GmbH v CoorStek Bioceramics LLC
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202402288EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2288


2.4.2024





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 January 2024 — CeramTec GmbH v CoorStek Bioceramics LLC
(Case C-17/24, Ceram Tec)
(C/2024/2288)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: CeramTec GmbH

Respondent: CoorStek Bioceramics LLC

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 52 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the grounds for invalidity set out in Article 7, to which Article 52(1)(a) refers, are independent from and do not overlap with the ground of bad faith referred to in Article 52(1)(b)?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, may the bad faith of the applicant be assessed by reference solely to the absolute ground for refusal of registration set out in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 where no finding has been made that the sign for which registration as a trade mark was sought consists exclusively of the shape of the product which is necessary to obtain a technical result?










3.


Is Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that bad faith is to be ruled out where the applicant has applied for registration of a trade mark with the intention of protecting a technical solution and, after the application was made, it is discovered that there was no connection between the technical solution in question and the signs which constitute the trade mark applied for?






(1)  
            OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2288/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-517/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2024 — Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV v European Commission, Stafa Group BV (Appeal — Dumping — Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia — Compliance with the judgment of 3 July 2019, Eurobolt (C 644/17, EU:C:2019:555) — Re-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 — Validity)
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_202401510EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1510


26.2.2024





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2024 — Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV v European Commission, Stafa Group BV
(Case C-517/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia - Compliance with the judgment of 3 July 2019, Eurobolt (C 644/17, EU:C:2019:555) - Re-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 - Validity)
(C/2024/1510)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV (represented by: B. Natens and A. Willems, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Bruti Liberati, G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Stafa Group BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV and ASF Fischer BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1510/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-16/24, Sinalov : Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 January 2024 – Criminal proceedings against YR, WV, AN, WY
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, duties of civil servants, independence of the judiciary, judge, jurisdiction








C_202402590EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2590


22.4.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 January 2024 – Criminal proceedings against YR, WV, AN, WY


(Case C-16/24, Sinalov
                (1)
)

(C/2024/2590)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

YR, WV, AN, WY

Questions referred

Is it compatible with Article 19([1) subparagraph 2] TEU and Article 47 of the Charter to interpret a national law envisaging, as a principle for administration of justice, random selection among judges in order to determine which one of them is to handle and rule on a criminal case, to the effect that, in the event of doubts as to whether the principle has been breached in a case already allocated by the head of court management, these doubts are to be resolved






1.


as a court matter and the court handling the case – including after hearing the parties and in the appeal proceedings – shall rule thereon, or










2.


as an administrative matter and only the head of court management has the power to make this assessment,




and furthermore to interpret such a national law to the effect that, if the judge to whom the case has been allocated is of the view that, in accordance with the aforementioned principle, another judge should handle the case and refers the case to this judge and the second judge who has received the case decides first to hear the parties in adversarial proceedings and then to make a decision autonomously as to the issue of his own jurisdiction, these two judges are committing a disciplinary offence in that their conduct is damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and is in breach of their official duties?


(1)  The present case is designated by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the actual name of a party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2590/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.107201Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, State aid, audiovisual industry, control of State aid, film industry, performing arts, programmes industry, television








C_202400679EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/679


11.1.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.107201
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/679)







Date of adoption of the decision


24.11.2023




Aid number


SA.107201




Member State


Spain




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


HAC — Deducción de la cuota líquida del impuesto sobre sociedades para producciones audiovisuales (ALAVA)




Legal basis


Deducción fiscal para inversiones y gastos en producciones de obras audiovisuales y para espectáculos en vivo de artes escénicas y musicales, y participación en su financiaciación. Proyectos de artículos 66 ter y 66 quater de la Norma Foral 7/2013, de 13 de diciembre, del Impuesto sobre sociedades de Álava.




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Culture




Form of aid


Tax allowance




Budget


Overall budget: 150 000 000  EUR




Intensity


60,0  %




Duration


Until 31.12.2028




Economic sectors


Motion picture, video and television programme production activities, Performing arts




Name and address of the granting authority







TERRITORIO HISTÓRICO DE ÁLAVA




Calle Felix María Samaniego,14








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/679/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-440/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 January 2024 — Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Air transport — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty — Decision of the European Commission not to raise objections on the ground that the measures constitute aid compatible with the internal market)
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, airline, company in difficulties, control of State aid








C_202401508EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1508


26.2.2024





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 January 2024 — Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) v European Commission
(Case C-440/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Air transport - Romania - Rescue aid to TAROM - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Decision of the European Commission not to raise objections on the ground that the measures constitute aid compatible with the internal market)
(C/2024/1508)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, S. Rating, abogado, and E. Vahida, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Barcew, V. Bottka and L. Flynn, acting as Agents,)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1508/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11363 – DIF / EDF / FJORD1)
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy production, ferryboat, gas industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services, wholesale trade








C_202401003EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1003


18.1.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11363 – DIF / EDF / FJORD1)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1003)

On 11 January 2024, 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 32024M11363. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1003/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.109639Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, financial services








C_202400677EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/677


11.1.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.109639
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/677)







Date of adoption of the decision


7.12.2023




Aid number


SA.109639




Member State


Ireland




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Proposed Prolongation of the Restructuring and Stabilisation Scheme for the Credit Union Sector in Ireland under the Credit Union and Co-operation with Overseas Regulators Act 2012 from 01 November 2023 to 31 October 2024.




Legal basis


Credit Union and Co-operation with Overseas Regulators Act 2012




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Equity instruments




Budget


Overall budget: 280 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


7.12.2023 — 30.4.2024




Economic sectors


Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding




Name and address of the granting authority







Minister for Finance




Government Buildings, Merrion Street, Dublin 2, Ireland








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/677/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-18/24, NOVIS: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2024 – NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s. v Česká národní banka
Date: 2024-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, competence of the institution, infringement of EU law, insurance company, supervisory body








C_202403051EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3051


13.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2024 – NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s. v Česká národní banka


(Case C-18/24, NOVIS)

(C/2024/3051)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s.

Defendant: Česká národní banka

Questions referred









1.


Must Article 155 of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) (Solvency II) be interpreted such that it also applies to cases of supervision by the supervisory authority of a host State over compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by Regulation No 1286/2014 (2) (PRIIPs) or based on Directive 2016/97 (3) (IDD)?












2.


If so, does Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive imply priority powers for the supervisory authority of the home State, and the obligation on the part of the supervisory authority of the host State to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive, even in the case of imposing administrative sanctions under paragraphs 5 and 6 of that article of the directive?






(1)  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 2009 L 335, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (OJ 2014 L 352, p. 1).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (OJ 2016 L 26, p. 19).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3051/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)