do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-320/24, Soledil: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 April 2024 – CR, TP v Soledil Srl, a company that has entered into a composition agreement with its creditors
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, higher court, preliminary issue, right to an effective remedy, unfair terms of contract








C_202404574EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4574


29.7.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 30 April 2024 – CR, TP v Soledil Srl, a company that has entered into a composition agreement with its creditors


(Case C-320/24, Soledil)

(C/2024/4574)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: CR, TP

Defendant: Soledil Srl, a company that has entered into a composition agreement with its creditors

Question referred

Are Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted:






(a)


as meaning that they preclude the application of the national procedure principles according to which preliminary questions, including those relating to the nullity of the contract, which have not been raised before the Court of Cassation, and which are logically incompatible with the nature of that court’s judgment, cannot be examined in the remitted proceedings or upon the review of legality to which the parties submit the judgment which was handed down by the court to which the case had been remitted;










(b)


also considering the complete passivity on the part of the consumers, where they never challenged the nullity/lack of legal effect of the unfair terms, except by appealing before the Supreme Court of Cassation at the outcome of the proceedings held before the court to which the case had been remitted;










(c)


and this with particular reference to the finding that a manifestly excessive penalty clause is unfair, the adjustment of its reduction according to appropriate criteria (quantum) having been ordered by the Supreme Court of Cassation, also on account of the consumers’ failure to argue that the clause is unfair (cause of action) except after the ruling by the court to which the case had been remitted?






(1)  
            OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4574/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-319/24 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 February 2024 in Case T-762/20, Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, import (EU), originating product








C_202403903EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3903


1.7.2024






Appeal brought on 30 April 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 February 2024 in Case T-762/20, Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission


(Case C-319/24 P)

(C/2024/3903)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd, Sinopec Great Wall Energy & Chemical (Ningxia) Co. Ltd, Central-China Company, Sinopec Chemical Commercial Holding Co. Ltd, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kuraray Europe GmbH, Sekisui Specialty Chemicals Europe SL, Wegochem Europe BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.
First, the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 2016/1036 (1) (‘the basic regulation’) when finding that the Commission erred in law by using the highest of the normal values of the other cooperating exporting producers as facts available for each product type where Sinopec Ningxia failed to provide the necessary information.
Second, the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of Articles 2(10) of the basic regulation, as well as the principle of good administration, and distorted the facts when finding that the Commission failed to demonstrate that a number of adjustments on the export price were necessary to make a fair comparison, that the applicant met the required burden of proof under Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, and that the Commission imposed an unreasonable burden by finding that the request for adjustments was unsubstantiated.
Third, the General Court erred in interpreting and applying Article 2(10)(i) of the basic regulation and committed an error of law in defining the burden of proof of the Commission as regards the Commission’s finding that Sinopec Central-China performed functions similar to an agent working on a commission basis.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3903/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-322/24: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o1 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 30 April 2024 – Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, S.A.U. v Embutidos Monells, S.A.
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, limitation of legal proceedings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202405206EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5206


2.9.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o1 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 30 April 2024 – Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, S.A.U. v Embutidos Monells, S.A.


(Case C-322/24)

(C/2024/5206)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o1 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, S.A.U.

Defendant: Embutidos Monells, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 (1) and Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (2) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an earlier registration who sets a specific time limit in the warning letter for bringing an action for a declaration of invalidity that clearly and unambiguously coincides with the general time limit of five years for bringing an action for a declaration of invalidity, is subject to the principle of estoppel, since that party has given the proprietor of the later trade mark the expectation that that proprietor will not be sued on the basis of possible invalidity after the specified date? In that regard, should a plea of bad faith in the application for registration asserted in subsequent legal proceedings for the purpose of avoiding the existence of a limitation period be regarded as conduct contrary to the principle of good faith if, at the time when the burofax was sent, the party already had all the elements necessary to consider that the registration had been applied for in bad faith?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 and Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the conduct of the applicant in actively opposing the registration of EU trade marks that substantially overlap with the contested national trade marks, where registration was ultimately refused as a result of that opposition, constitutes an effort within a reasonable period to remedy that situation?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

(2)  
            OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5206/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.108418
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, land transport








C_202403003EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3003


30.4.2024






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.108418
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/3003)








Date of adoption of the decision


4.4.2024




Aid number


SA.108418




Member State


Germany




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Förderrichtlinie Modellprojekte zur Stärkung des ÖPNV [BMDV]




Legal basis


§ § 23, 44 Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO)




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 446 937 000  EUR
Annual budget: 148 979 000  EUR




Intensity


80,0 %




Duration


2.4.2024 - 31.12.2026




Economic sectors


Other passenger land transport n.e.c.




Name and address of the granting authority







Bundesamt für Logistik und Mobilität




Werderstraße 34, 50672 Köln








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/2024/3003/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 29 April 2024
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202402248EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2248


30.4.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            29 April 2024
         
(C/2024/2248)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0720 




JPY


Japanese yen


167,53 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4581 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85493 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,6850 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9776 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7835 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,175 




HUF


Hungarian forint


391,64 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3255 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9759 




TRY


Turkish lira


34,7103 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6322 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4635 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3904 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7932 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4578 




KRW


South Korean won


1 476,15 




ZAR


South African rand


20,0504 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7627 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 408,74 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1108 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,858 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


39,696 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4706 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3202 




INR


Indian rupee


89,4610 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2248/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-822/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2024 – Republic of Latvia v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 259 TFEU – Directive 2014/49/EU – Deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) – Article 14(3) – Transfer of the activities of a credit institution from the DGS of one Member State to the DGS of another Member State – Transfer to the DGS of the host Member State of the contributions paid to the DGS of the home Member State during the 12 months preceding the transfer of the activities – Obligation – Failure to transfer contributions – Effectiveness – Principle of sincere cooperation)
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, branch, credit guarantee, credit institution, financial control, financial supervision, single market








C_202403718EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3718


24.6.2024






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2024 – Republic of Latvia v Kingdom of Sweden


(Case C-822/21)
                (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Directive 2014/49/EU - Deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs) - Article 14(3) - Transfer of the activities of a credit institution from the DGS of one Member State to the DGS of another Member State - Transfer to the DGS of the host Member State of the contributions paid to the DGS of the home Member State during the 12 months preceding the transfer of the activities - Obligation - Failure to transfer contributions - Effectiveness - Principle of sincere cooperation)
(C/2024/3718)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: J. Davidoviča, K. Pommere and I. Romanovska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: H. Shev and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Kriisa, acting as Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: E. Ljung Rasmussen and A. Nijenhuis, K. Simonsson and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by refusing to transfer to the Latvian deposit guarantee scheme (DGS) the contributions that had been paid by the Latvian branch of Nordea Bank AB to the Swedish DGS in respect of the 12-month period preceding the transfer of the activities of that branch to the Latvian DGS, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3718/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-321/24, Attal et Associés: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 30 April 2024 – BC v S. C. P. Attal et Associés
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, economic value, free movement of capital, inheritance, law of succession, notary, remuneration of work, tax law, tax offence








C_202404953EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4953


19.8.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 30 April 2024 – BC v S. C. P. Attal et Associés


(Case C-321/24, Attal et Associés)

(C/2024/4953)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BC

Defendant: S. C. P. Attal et Associés

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding the dual remuneration of the notaries of two Member States of the European Union involved in the same succession, which includes assets in the two Member States, the calculation of which is also based on the total gross assets of the estate, without taking into account the remuneration paid to the other notary, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?










2.


Is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding the remuneration of a notary, whose involvement in a succession including assets in two Member States of the European Union is a legal requirement, from being calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate and not just on the gross assets located in his or her Member State?










3.


Are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in two Member States, can constitute a ‘relevant provision of their tax law’ derogating from the prohibition on restricting movements of capital laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?










4.


Are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in the two Member States, can constitute an essential measure to thwart tax infringements or a procedure for the declaration of capital movements for administrative or statistical information purposes derogating from the prohibition on restricting capital movements laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4953/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-8/23, Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 30 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État – France) – FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins, other parties to the proceedings: Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, medical specialisation, medical training, physician, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, third country








C_202403756EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3756


24.6.2024






Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 30 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État – France) – FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins, other parties to the proceedings: Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique


(Case C-8/23,
                (1)
Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins)

(C/2024/3756)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 127, 11.4.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3756/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: dairy production, raw milk, regulation of agricultural production




C_202402994EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2994


30.4.2024






Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

(C/2024/2994)











Annual data (1000 t)
 (*1)





Amounts of raw milk production (*2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013




2022


Cow


Ewe


Goat


Buffalo




BE


4 572,00 


0,00 


46,00 


0,00 




BG


770,73 


56,66 


25,93 


15,28 




CZ


3 339,16 


0,10 


0,55 


0,00 




DK


5 664,00 


0,00 


0,00 


0,00 




DE


32 399,05 


7,01  (*3)



15,56  (*3)



2,00  (*3)





EE


848,10 


0,00 


0,50 


0,00 




IE


9 108,28 


0,00 


0,00 


0,00 




EL


691,25 


956,45 


351,72 


0,00 




ES


7 454,97 


545,95 


482,08 


0,00 




FR


23 967,96 


343,28 


717,61 


0,00 




HR


522,00 


6,00 


7,00 


0,00 




IT


13 181,87 


475,40 


59,97 


254,45 




CY


286,75 


44,05 


35,43 


0,00 




LV


973,81 


0,00 


1,48 


0,00 




LT


1 517,61 


0,00 


4,33 


0,00 




LU


449,09 


0,09 


3,25 


0,00 




HU


2 040,34 


1,50 


3,06 


0,00 




MT


38,97 


2,07 


1,03 


0,00 




NL


14 533,74 


0,00 


445,22 


4,95 




AT


3 942,50 


11,69 


26,11 


0,00 




PL


15 208,49 


0,44 


9,15 


0,00 




PT


1 928,87 


72,18 


29,88 


0,00 




RO


3 621,80 


404,40 


221,60 


14,10 




SI


625,35 


0,59 


2,17 


0,00 




SK


915,12 


11,67 


0,19 


0,00 




FI


2 258,63 


0,00 


0,00 


0,00 




SE


2 764,84 


0,00 


0,00 


0,00 




EU-27


153 625,28 


2 939,53 


2 489,82 


290,78 






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(*1)  0,00: zero or less than 5 t.

(*2)  2022 Milk Production on the farm EUROSTAT – NewCronos Products Obtained.

(*3)  Communicated by Member State and/or estimated/calculated production.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2994/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Is democracy becoming a factor in the EU's security? : the evolution of the EU policies and discourses resulting from the war in Ukraine.
Date: 2024-04-30
Institutions: European University Institute
Subjects: EU policy, European defence policy, European integration, European security, Russo-Ukrainian issue, democracy

 
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
 
 
   
|

|

|

     
  
|

|

|

     
 
 
|

|

|

     
 
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
 
 
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
 
|

|

|

     
|

|

|

     
  
 
|

|

|

     
 
 
 
 
 
 
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however 
those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European 
Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). 
Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them. This 
work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0) 
International license which governs the terms of access and reuse for this work. 
If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), 
editor(s), the title, the series and number, the year and the publisher. 

|

|

|