do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-76/22, Santander Bank Polska: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie – Poland) – QI v Santander Bank Polska S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2014/17/EU – Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property – Article 25(1) – Early repayment – Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit – Article 4(13) – Concept of total cost of the credit to the consumer – Costs that are dependent of the duration of the contract – Commission for granting the credit payable when concluding the contract – Methodology for calculating the reduction)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, interest, real estate credit, redemption








C_202407133EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7133


9.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie – Poland) – QI v Santander Bank Polska S.A.


(Case C-76/22,
                (1)
Santander Bank Polska)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2014/17/EU - Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property - Article 25(1) - Early repayment - Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit - Article 4(13) - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs that are dependent of the duration of the contract - Commission for granting the credit payable when concluding the contract - Methodology for calculating the reduction)
(C/2024/7133)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QI

Defendant: Santander Bank Polska S.A.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010
must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of information provided by the creditor enabling a national court to ascertain whether a commission charged when concluding a mortgage agreement falls within the category of costs that are independent of the duration of that agreement, that court must consider that such a commission is covered by the right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit referred to in that provision.










2.


Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17
must be interpreted as meaning that no specific methodology for calculating the amount of the reduction in the total cost of credit referred to in that provision stems from that provision.






(1)  
            OJ C 173, 15.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7133/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-349/23, Zetschek: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe – Germany) – HB v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2(2)(a) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Mandatory retirement age – National legislation precluding any postponement of the retirement of federal judges – Possibility for federal civil servants and Land judges to request the postponement of retirement – Difference in treatment on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, civil servant, equal treatment, judge, retirement conditions








C_202407147EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7147


9.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe – Germany) – HB v Bundesrepublik Deutschland


(Case C-349/23,
                (1)
Zetschek)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2)(a) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Mandatory retirement age - National legislation precluding any postponement of the retirement of federal judges - Possibility for federal civil servants and Land judges to request the postponement of retirement - Difference in treatment on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work)
(C/2024/7147)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HB

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, under which federal judges cannot postpone their retirement, whereas federal civil servants and Land judges are allowed to do so, does not establish a difference in treatment directly based on age, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 338, 25.9.2023.

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7147/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11693 – PLATINUM EQUITY GROUP / FRATELLI POLLI)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food production, information technology industry, investment company, logistics, merger control, metallurgical industry, processing industry, service, telecommunications








C_202406373EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6373


23.10.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11693 – PLATINUM EQUITY GROUP / FRATELLI POLLI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6373)

On 17 October 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 32024M11693. 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/2024/6373/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-408/23, Anwaltsnotarin: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln – Germany) – Rechtsanwältin und Notarin v Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Upper age limit of 60 years for first appointment to the position of lawyer commissioned as notary – Vacant positions due to a lack of younger candidates – Justification – Appropriateness and necessity)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, appointment of staff, equal treatment, job vacancy, lawyer, notary, principle of proportionality








C_202407148EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7148


9.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln – Germany) – Rechtsanwältin und Notarin v Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm


(Case C-408/23,
                (1)
Anwaltsnotarin)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Upper age limit of 60 years for first appointment to the position of lawyer commissioned as notary - Vacant positions due to a lack of younger candidates - Justification - Appropriateness and necessity)
(C/2024/7148)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rechtsanwältin und Notarin

Defendant: Präsidentin des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to a position of lawyer commissioned as notary, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate employment and labour market policy objective and that, in the relevant legislative context and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of that objective.


(1)  
            OJ C 321, 11.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7148/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11745 – DIE SCHWEIZERISCHE POST / FENACO / POWERUP JV)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Switzerland, agricultural product, economic concentration, electric vehicle, electricity supply, merger control, postal service








C_202406590EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6590


29.10.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11745 – DIE SCHWEIZERISCHE POST / FENACO / POWERUP JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6590)

On 17 October 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 German language 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 32024M11745. 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/2024/6590/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 16 October 2024
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202405895EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5895


17.10.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            16 October 2024
         
(C/2024/5895)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0897 




JPY


Japanese yen


162,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4610 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83605 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3460 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9397 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,8015 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,296 




HUF


Hungarian forint


401,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3000 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9761 




TRY


Turkish lira


37,2788 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6291 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5013 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4676 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7924 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4264 




KRW


South Korean won


1 483,10 




ZAR


South African rand


19,1283 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7511 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 919,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6803 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,947 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,102 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1432 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4791 




INR


Indian rupee


91,5500 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5895/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-539/24: Action brought on 17 October 2024 – Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Commission
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_202500193EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/193


13.1.2025






Action brought on 17 October 2024 – Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Commission


(Case T-539/24)

(C/2025/193)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, S. Rating, D. Pérez de Lamo and C. Cozzani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 March 2024 on State Aid SA.59029 (2020/NN) – Italy – COVID-19 Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating license (1);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs; and,










—


order any interveners to pay their costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes the freedom to provide services (Articles 15 of Regulation 1008/2008 (2) and 56 TFUE) and the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Rome I Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 107(2)(b) TFEU insofar it manifestly errs in the assessment of (i) the direct causal link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the eligible damage and (ii) the proportionality of the aid measure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFUE.






(1)  OJ C/2024/4673.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/193/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-409/23, Riverty: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Netherlands) – Riverty GmbH, legal successor of Arvato Finance BV v MI (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2008/48/EC – Scope – Credit agreements for consumers – Exceptions – Article 2(2)(f) – Interest-free credit agreements without other charges or providing for negligible charges – Deferred payment service Buy now, pay later – Late payment – Default interest and out-of-court collection costs)
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, deadline for payment, interest, legal expenses, redemption








C_202407149EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7149


9.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Netherlands) – Riverty GmbH, legal successor of Arvato Finance BV v MI


(Case C-409/23,
                (1)
Riverty)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Scope - Credit agreements for consumers - Exceptions - Article 2(2)(f) - Interest-free credit agreements without other charges or providing for negligible charges - Deferred payment service ‘Buy now, pay later’ - Late payment - Default interest and out-of-court collection costs)
(C/2024/7149)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Riverty GmbH, legal successor of Arvato Finance BV

Defendant: MI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC
must be interpreted as meaning that save where the creditor anticipates, from the time the credit agreement is concluded, the non-performance by the consumer of the payment obligation in order to seek a financial advantage, the default interest and the out-of-court collection costs which a consumer is liable to pay in the event of late payment or non-performance of his or her payment obligation under a credit agreement do not fall within the concepts of ‘interest’ and ‘other charges’, within the meaning of that provision, irrespective, in principle, of whether such interest and other charges are statutory or contractual in origin and of whether, as the case may be, such interest and other charges arising under an agreement are greater than would be payable by law.


(1)  
            OJ C 495, 6.11.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7149/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)