do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
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.115943
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, viticulture








C_202406362EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6362


24.10.2024






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.115943
(C/2024/6362)








Date of adoption of the decision


3.10.2024




Aid number


SA.115943




Member State


France




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


TCTF: Dispositif exceptionnel d’aide à la réduction définitive du potentiel viticole suite aux conséquences de l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine




Legal basis


Projet de décision de la directrice générale de FranceAgriMer n° XXX relative aux modalités de mise en œuvre d’un dispositif exceptionnel d’aide à la réduction définitive du potentiel viticole suite aux conséquences de l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 120 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2024




Economic sectors


Growing of grapes




Name and address of the granting authority







FranceAgriMer




12 Rue Henri Rol-Tanguy, 93100 Montreuil








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/2024/6362/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-347/23, Zabitoń: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – LB, JL v Getin Noble Bank S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 2(b) – Definition of consumer – Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency – Natural person who has acquired a residential property to be leased for consideration)
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, natural person, property leasing, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_202407292EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7292


16.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – LB, JL v Getin Noble Bank S.A.


(Case C-347/23,
                (1)
Zabitoń)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency - Natural person who has acquired a residential property to be leased for consideration)
(C/2024/7292)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LB, JL

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who enters into a mortgage loan agreement in order to finance the purchase of a single residential property to be leased for consideration comes under the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision, where that natural person acts for purposes that are outside his or her trade, business or profession. The mere fact that that natural person seeks to earn income from the management of that property cannot, in itself, lead to the exclusion of that person from the scope of the concept of ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  
            OJ C 321, 11.9.2023.

(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/2024/7292/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2717 of 24 October 2024 correcting certain language versions of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Taric, tariff preference








L_202402717EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2024/2717


25.10.2024







            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2024/2717
of 24 October 2024
         
correcting certain language versions of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1) and Article 12 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The German language version of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 contains errors in Part II, Section II, Chapter 6, the table, in the description of CN codes 0601 , 0601 10  and 0601 20 .












(2)


The Finnish language version of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 contains errors in Part II, Section VI, Chapter 29, point 5(D) and Chapter 38, the table, in the description of CN codes 3824 99 61  and 3827 11 00 .












(3)


The Finnish and German language versions of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, delivered prior to the adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2364 (2),





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(Does not concern the English language)



Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 October 2024.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1987/2658/oj.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2364 of 26 September 2023 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L, 2023/2364, 31.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2364/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2717/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-743/24, Alchaster II: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 October 2024 – Criminal proceedings against MA
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conditional discharge, criminal law, criminal proceedings, imprisonment, offence








C_202500153EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/153


13.1.2025






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 October 2024 – Criminal proceedings against MA


(Case C-743/24, Alchaster II
                (1)
)

(C/2025/153)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Criminal proceedings against

MA

Question referred







1.


Would the application, to a person convicted of an offence or offences and sentenced to a determinate sentence(s), of amended rules having the effect that he or she will have to serve at least two-thirds of such sentence and then will have only a conditional right to release on licence dependent on an assessment of dangerousness, whereas under the rules applicable at the time of the alleged offences, that person would have been automatically entitled as a matter of law to release on licence once he had served one-half of that sentence, involve the imposition of a ‘heavier penalty’ on the convicted person than the penalty applicable at the time of the alleged offences such as to amount to a breach of Article 49(1) of the Charter?






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/153/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to the Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (OJ L, 2024/2097, 12.8.2024)
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), legal process, operation of the Institutions, rules of procedure








L_202490651EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2024/90651


24.10.2024






Corrigendum to the Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2024/2097, 12 August 2024
)


On page 10, in point 60:
for:






‘60.


The request for an extension of a time limit referred to in Article 86(1) of the Rules of Procedure must be lodged before the expiry of that time limit or, where the General Court decides to rule without an oral part of the procedure, immediately after service of that decision. It must be reasoned, must state the measure which replaces or amends the measure the annulment of which is sought, and must specify the starting point of the time limits laid down in Article 86(2) and (3) within which the annulment of the measure justifying the modification of the application may be sought. No extension of a time limit as referred to in Article 86(1) of the Rules of Procedure may be granted beyond the time limits laid down in Article 86(2) and (3).’,




read:






‘60.


The request for an extension of the time limit referred to in Article 86(1) of the Rules of Procedure must be lodged before the expiry of that time limit or, where the General Court decides to rule without an oral part of the procedure, immediately after service of that decision. It must be reasoned, must state the measure which replaces or amends the measure the annulment of which is sought, and must specify the starting point of the time limits laid down in Article 86(2) and (3) within which the annulment of the measure justifying the modification of the application may be sought. No extension of the time limit referred to in Article 86(1) of the Rules of Procedure may be granted beyond the time limits laid down in Article 86(2) and (3).’.




On page 33, in point 250:
for:






‘250.


Following the entry into force of the decision referred to in Article 110a(4) and Article 219(4) of the Rules of Procedure, hearings of the General Court may be broadcast, in accordance with the conditions laid down in those articles.’,




read:






‘250.


Following the entry into force of the decision referred to in Article 110a(8) and Article 219(8) of the Rules of Procedure, hearings of the General Court may be broadcast, in accordance with the conditions laid down in those articles.’.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/proc_internal/2024/2097/corrigendum/2024-10-24/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-339/23, Horyzont: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich – Poland) – Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Risk of over-indebtedness – Article 8 – Obligation on the creditor to check the creditworthiness of the consumer – Article 10 – Information to be included in credit agreements – Article 23 – Penalty in the event of failure to comply with that obligation – Equivalent penalties – Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, unfair terms of contract








C_202407291EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7291


16.12.2024






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich – Poland) – Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v LC


(Case C-339/23,
                (1)
Horyzont)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Risk of over-indebtedness - Article 8 - Obligation on the creditor to check the creditworthiness of the consumer - Article 10 - Information to be included in credit agreements - Article 23 - Penalty in the event of failure to comply with that obligation - Equivalent penalties - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)
(C/2024/7291)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Horyzont Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty

Defendant: LC

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 23 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 not precluding a penalty implemented in the event of a failure to comply with the obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, from differing from the penalty provided for in the event of a failure to comply with other, potentially equivalent, obligations provided for in that directive, in particular the obligation referred to in Article 10(2) thereof concerning the information to be included in consumer credit agreements, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 23 of that directive are met.


(1)  
            OJ C 314, 4.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7291/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 23 October 2024
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202405900EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5900


24.10.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            23 October 2024
         
(C/2024/5900)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0767 




JPY


Japanese yen


164,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4583 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83148 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,4120 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9340 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,8525 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,235 




HUF


Hungarian forint


401,83 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3433 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9737 




TRY


Turkish lira


36,9250 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6233 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4900 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3656 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7918 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4237 




KRW


South Korean won


1 491,54 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0355 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6759 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 872,70 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6836 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,513 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,355 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1583 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6115 




INR


Indian rupee


90,5370 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5900/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, offshore wind energy production








C_202406370EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6370


24.10.2024






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(C/2024/6370)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


10 July 2024




Case No


92250




Decision No


112/24/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


ENOVA investment aid scheme for floating offshore wind




Legal basis


Enova Programmes




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Environmental




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


NOK 10 billion




Intensity


up to 100 % of the total investment cost




Duration


Until 31 December 2025




Economic sectors


Production of electricity




Name and address of the granting authority







Enova SF




Brattørkaia 17A




7010 Trondheim




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6370/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, oxide








C_202406371EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6371


24.10.2024






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(C/2024/6371)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


11 June 2024




Case No


92189




Decision No


084/24/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Temporary NOx tax exemption




Legal basis


Annual Parliamentary Resolution on excise duties




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Environmental




Form of aid


Tax exemption




Budget


NOK 3 640  million




Intensity


100 % exemption




Duration


2026-2027




Economic sectors


All NOx emitting sectors




Name and address of the granting authority


Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6371/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-240/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 – European Commission v Intel Corporation Inc., Association for Competitive Technology Inc., and Others (Appeal – Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Microprocessors market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement – Loyalty rebates – Characterisation as abuse – Strategy aiming to exclude competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market)
Date: 2024-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer equipment, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic component, reduced price, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_202500032EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/32


6.1.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2024 – European Commission v Intel Corporation Inc., Association for Competitive Technology Inc., and Others


(Case C-240/22 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Microprocessors market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Loyalty rebates - Characterisation as abuse - Strategy aiming to exclude competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market)
(C/2025/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially, F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer, N. Khan and C. Sjödin, subsequently, F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, and, lastly, F. Castillo de la Torre and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Intel Corporation Inc. (represented by: initially, D. Beard KC, J. Williams, Barrister, and A. Parr, Solicitor, and, subsequently, by D. Beard KC, J. Williams, Barrister, and B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt), Association for Competitive Technology Inc. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and K. Van Hove, advocaat), Union fédérale des consommateurs – Que choisir (UFC – Que choisir)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and P.-L. Krüger, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Intel Corporation Inc. and by Association for Competitive Technology Inc.;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Intel Corporation Inc. and by Association for Competitive Technology Inc. in connection with the intervention.






(1)  
            OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/32/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)