do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-745/22,  Micreos Food Safety: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias – Greece) – Micreos Food Safety BV v Eniaios Foreas Elenchou Trofimon (EFET) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Food safety – Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Article 3(2) – Substance intended to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin – Definition – Contamination by the pathogenic bacterium Listeria monocytogenes – Substance intended to prevent surface contamination from products of animal origin and applied outside of slaughterhouses during the final stages of the production process – Placing on the market – Prior approval by the European Commission)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, food additive, food contamination, food processing, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, market approval








C_202402397EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2397


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Micreos Food Safety BV v Eniaios Foreas Elenchou Trofimon (EFET)
(Case C-745/22, (1) Micreos Food Safety)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Article 3(2) - Substance intended to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin - Definition - Contamination by the pathogenic bacterium Listeria monocytogenes - Substance intended to prevent surface contamination from products of animal origin and applied outside of slaughterhouses during the final stages of the production process - Placing on the market - Prior approval by the European Commission)
(C/2024/2397)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV

Defendant: Eniaios Foreas Elenchou Trofimon (EFET)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019,
must be interpreted as requiring the European Commission to approve the use of a product, such as Listex™ P100, intended to prevent the presence of the pathogenic bacterium Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat food of animal origin.


(1)  
            OJ C 104, 20.3.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2397/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 21 February 2024
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202401146EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1146


22.2.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            21 February 2024
         
(C/2024/1146)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0809 




JPY


Japanese yen


162,12 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4545 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85619 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,2075 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9510 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,3345 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,380 




HUF


Hungarian forint


387,98 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3165 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9760 




TRY


Turkish lira


33,5149 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6486 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4618 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4544 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7479 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4524 




KRW


South Korean won


1 441,77 




ZAR


South African rand


20,3446 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7730 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 889,77 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1818 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,480 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,739 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3253 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,4379 




INR


Indian rupee


89,6320 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1146/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-85/23,  Landkreis Jerichower Land: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt - Germany) – Landkreis Jerichower Land v A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public health – Health rules applicable to animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption – Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 – Approval – Article 24(1)(i) – Concept of ‘storage of animal by-products’ – Interruption of a transport operation for up to eight hours)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: by-product, container, material of animal origin, storage








C_202402399EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2399


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Germany) — Landkreis Jerichower Land v A.
(Case C-85/23, (1) Landkreis Jerichower Land)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Health rules applicable to animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Approval - Article 24(1)(i) - Concept of ‘storage of animal by-products’ - Interruption of a transport operation for up to eight hours)
(C/2024/2399)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landkreis Jerichower Land

Defendant: A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation)
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘storage’ to which it refers includes the interruption of a transport operation, lasting from a few hours to eight hours, during which transport containers containing Category 3 animal by-products are transferred from one transport vehicle to another, before being transported to a processing plant, without those animal by-products being treated or transferred to other transport containers during that interruption.


(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2399/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-311/22,  Moesgaard Meat 2012: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret – Denmark) – Anklagemyndigheden v PO, Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 2010/75/EU – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Article 10 – Annex I, point 6.4(a) – Operating slaughterhouses with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day – Concepts of ‘carcass’ and ‘production capacity per day’ – Slaughterhouse without a permit – Actual production must be taken into account)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carcase, industrial pollution, meat processing industry, pollution control, slaughter animal, slaughter of animals, swine








C_202402390EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2390


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Anklagemyndigheden v PO, Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S
(Case C-311/22, (1) Moesgaard Meat 2012)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Article 10 - Annex I, point 6.4(a) - Operating slaughterhouses with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day - Concepts of ‘carcass’ and ‘production capacity per day’ - Slaughterhouse without a permit - Actual production must be taken into account)
(C/2024/2390)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendants: PO, Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)
must be interpreted as meaning that for the purpose of calculating the pig carcass production capacity of a slaughterhouse, it is necessary to take into consideration the weight of the slaughtered pigs after exsanguination and evisceration and without the tongue, bristles, hooves, genital organs, flare fat, kidneys and diaphragm.










2.


Point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75
must be interpreted as meaning that where the daily carcass production capacity of an operating slaughterhouse that does not have the permit required under Article 4(1) of that directive is calculated on the basis of its actual monthly production volumes, that calculation must include, in addition to the days on which animals are slaughtered, the days on which other steps in carcass production are carried out. By contrast, it is not necessary in that context to take into account any physical, technical or legal constraints that could restrict the production capacity of the slaughterhouse.






(1)  
            OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2390/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-81/23,  FCA Italy and FPT Industrial: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof – Austria) – MA v FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Point 2 of Article 7 – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the damage occurred – Use on a vehicle of a defeat device that reduces the effectiveness of emission control systems – Contract for the sale of that vehicle concluded in a Member State other than the State in which the purchaser is domiciled and in which the manufacturer has its seat – Delivery of that vehicle and normal use of it in the Member State in which the purchaser is domiciled)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, diesel engine, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, motor vehicle, private international law, purchase, residence, vehicle parts








C_202402398EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2398


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — MA v FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA
(Case C-81/23, (1) FCA Italy and FPT Industrial)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the damage occurred - Use on a vehicle of a defeat device that reduces the effectiveness of emission control systems - Contract for the sale of that vehicle concluded in a Member State other than the State in which the purchaser is domiciled and in which the manufacturer has its seat - Delivery of that vehicle and normal use of it in the Member State in which the purchaser is domiciled)
(C/2024/2398)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MA

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: FCA Italy SpA, FPT Industrial SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a vehicle, allegedly equipped by its manufacturer, in a first Member State, with an unlawful defeat device that reduces the effectiveness of emission control systems, has formed the subject of a contract of sale concluded in a second Member State and has been delivered to the purchaser in a third Member State, the place where the damage occurred, within the meaning of that provision, is in the latter Member State.


(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2398/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-125/23,  Unedic: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence - France) – Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille v V, W, X, Y, Z, Liquidator of company K (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 2008/94/EC – Employees’ outstanding salary claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships taken over by guarantee institutions – Exclusion in the event of a declaration terminating the employment contract by the employee)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, employer, financial solvency, labour dispute, labour law, termination of employment, wage earner








C_202402400EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2400


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence — France) — Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille v V, W, X, Y, Z, Liquidator of company K
(Case C-125/23, (1) Unedic)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Employees’ outstanding salary claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships taken over by guarantee institutions - Exclusion in the event of a declaration terminating the employment contract by the employee)
(C/2024/2400)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Association Unedic délégation AGS de Marseille

Defendants: V, W, X, Y, Z Liquidator of company K

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships to be covered by the national scheme ensuring the payment of employees’ claims by a guarantee institution established in accordance with Article 3 of that directive, where the termination of the contract of employment is at the initiative of the court-appointed administrator, liquidator or employer concerned, but excludes the coverage of such claims by that guarantee institution where the employee in question makes a declaration terminating his or her contract of employment due to such serious breaches on the part of his or her employer that continuation of that contract has been rendered impossible and a national court has held that declaration to be justified.


(1)  
            OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2400/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-661/22,  ABC Projektai: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas – Lithuania) – ‘ABC Projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Bruc Bond’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Payment services in the internal market – Directive (EU) 2015/2366 – Article 4(3) and (5) – Payment service or payment transaction – Directive 2009/110/EC – Article 2(2) – Issuance of electronic money – Holding of customer funds by a payment institution without a specific payment order – Classification)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, financial institution, financial services, financial transaction, payment








C_202402394EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2394


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘ABC Projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Bruc Bond’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas
(Case C-661/22, (1) ABC Projektai)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive (EU) 2015/2366 - Article 4(3) and (5) - Payment service or payment transaction - Directive 2009/110/EC - Article 2(2) - Issuance of electronic money - Holding of customer funds by a payment institution without a specific payment order - Classification)
(C/2024/2394)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law:
            ‘ABC Projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Bruc Bond’ UAB

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lietuvos bankas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, and Article 2(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC,
must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of a payment institution which consists in receiving funds from a user of a payment service, where such funds are not immediately accompanied by a payment order and therefore remain available on a payment account, within the meaning of Article 4(12) of Directive 2015/2366, operated by that institution, constitutes a payment service provided by that payment institution, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Directive 2015/2366, and not a transaction consisting in the issuance of electronic money, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2009/110.


(1)  
            OJ C 482, 19.12.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2394/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-54/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 – Romania v European Commission, Hungary (Appeal – Law governing the institutions – European Citizens’ Initiative – Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 – Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative – Article 4(2)(b) – Proposed citizens’ initiative not falling manifestly outside the framework of the European Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties – Burden of proof – Power of the Commission to proceed with partial registration)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizens' initiative, cultural pluralism, economic and social cohesion, national minority, petition, regional culture, regional development








C_202402387EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2387


8.4.2024





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2024 — Romania v European Commission, Hungary
(Case C-54/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - European Citizens’ Initiative - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative - Article 4(2)(b) - Proposed citizens’ initiative not falling manifestly outside the framework of the European Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Burden of proof - Power of the Commission to proceed with partial registration)
(C/2024/2387)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellant: Romania (represented by: L. E. Baţagoi, M. Chicu, E. Gane and L. Liţu, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Croce and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2387/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11380 – INPEX / KHI / IWATANI / JS)
Date: 2024-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Australia, Japan, economic concentration, energy supply, hydrocarbon, hydrogen production, mechanical engineering, merger control, mineral resources, oil industry








C_202502793EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2793


19.5.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11380 – INPEX / KHI / IWATANI / JS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/2793)

On 22 February 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 32024M11380. 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/2025/2793/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)