do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-141/23: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Merlin and Others v Commission (Action for failure to act – State aid – Common fisheries policy – Funding for shipowners fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current – Complaint – Admissibility – Definition of a position by the Commission – Clear and definitive nature of the position adopted – Competence of the Commission – Obligation to act)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, admissibility, aid to undertakings, common fisheries policy, control of State aid, fishing net, fishing vessel, powers of the institutions (EU), sea fishing








C_202500264EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/264


20.1.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Merlin and Others v Commission


(Case T-141/23)
                (1)

(Action for failure to act - State aid - Common fisheries policy - Funding for shipowners fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current - Complaint - Admissibility - Definition of a position by the Commission - Clear and definitive nature of the position adopted - Competence of the Commission - Obligation to act)
(C/2025/264)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Laurent Merlin (Équihen-Plage, France) and the 27 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, F. de Bure and T. Otmani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, M. Abenhaïm and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 265 TFEU, the applicants ask the Court to declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to adopt, following the examination of their complaints concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to shipowners engaged in fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current, a decision under Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU by failing to act under that regulation in so far as concerns the alleged State aid referred to in paragraph 6(a) under the heading ‘State aids that are incompatible with the internal market’ of the applicants’ complaints and under point VI of their letter of 4 April 2022;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 164, 8.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/264/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11670 – MARCEGAGLIA / MANNI / ISOPAN)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, flat product, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_202501143EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1143


13.2.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11670 – MARCEGAGLIA / MANNI / ISOPAN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1143)

On 13 November 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 Italian 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 32024M11670. 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/2025/1143/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11714 – ONE ROCK CAPITAL / EUROPE SNACKS)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Spain, United Kingdom, economic concentration, food production, investment company, merger control








C_202500316EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/316


10.1.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11714 – ONE ROCK CAPITAL / EUROPE SNACKS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/316)

On 13 November 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 32024M11714. 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/2025/316/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11758 – VANDEN AVENNE / ALCOGROUP / IGPC)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Canada, Europe, European Economic Area, agricultural product, biofuel, by-product, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, supply








C_202406991EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6991


19.11.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11758 – VANDEN AVENNE / ALCOGROUP / IGPC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/6991)

On 13 November 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 32024M11758. 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/2024/6991/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-581/24: Action brought on 13 November 2024 – Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, environmental protection, maladministration








C_202500574EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/574


3.2.2025






Action brought on 13 November 2024 – Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission


(Case T-581/24)

(C/2025/574)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Hackl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s implied decision of 6 September 2024 to refuse access to documents, as requested by the applicants under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making; (2) and










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs, pursuant to Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons, in breach of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296(2) TFEU.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/574/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-16/24: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – IServ v EUIPO – Jordanova and Others (IServ) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark IServ – Earlier national word mark Info Serv – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Legal authenticity of translations – Article 26 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cloud computing, computer equipment, consultancy, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_202500184EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/184


13.1.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – IServ v EUIPO – Jordanova and Others (IServ)


(Case T-16/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark IServ - Earlier national word mark Info Serv - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Legal authenticity of translations - Article 26 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626)
(C/2025/184)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IServ GmbH (Brunswick, Germany) (represented by: M. Wille, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Victoria Dorovska (Sofia, Bulgaria), Stefan Jordanov (Ruse, Bulgaria), Nadja Jordanova (Ruse)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 November 2023 (Case R 1557/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1558, 26.2.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/184/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-559/23: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Skins IP v EUIPO – Symphony (S SKINS) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark S SKINS – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, medical device, registered trade mark, sport, surgery, trade-mark law








C_202500175EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/175


13.1.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Skins IP v EUIPO – Symphony (S SKINS)


(Case T-559/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark S SKINS - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/175)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Skins IP Ltd (Shirebrook, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Lobotková and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Symphony Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2023 (Case R 1796/2022-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Skins IP Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/349, 30.10.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/175/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-584/24: Action brought on 13 November 2024 – Tkach v Council
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_202500399EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/399


27.1.2025






Action brought on 13 November 2024 – Tkach v Council


(Case T-584/24)

(C/2025/399)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oleg Polikarpovich Tkach (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: É. Épron and C. Gimbert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action for annulment admissible and well founded;










—


annul in part Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and therefore Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


annul in part Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and therefore Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;










—


reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/399/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-58/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – NetCologne v Commission (Competition – Concentrations – German markets for TV services and telecommunications services – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement – Commitments – Assessment of the horizontal, vertical and conglomerate effects of the transaction on competition – Competitive relationship between the parties to the concentration – Merger-specific change – Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Germany, competition, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, telecommunications, television








C_202500258EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/258


20.1.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – NetCologne v Commission


(Case T-58/20)
                (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German markets for TV services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Assessment of the horizontal, vertical and conglomerate effects of the transaction on competition - Competitive relationship between the parties to the concentration - Merger-specific change - Manifest error of assessment)
(C/2025/258)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Geppert, P. Schmitz and J. Schulze zur Wiesche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, A. Keidel and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendant: Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom) (represented by V. Vollmann, solicitor, C. Jeffs, A. Chadd and D. Seeliger, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 5187 final of 18 July 2019 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Vodafone Group plc of certain assets of Liberty Global plc to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.8864 – Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/258/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-614/24, AROCO: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 November 2024 – AROCO, spol. s r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: excise duty, flavouring, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, tax exemption








C_202500583EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/583


3.2.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 November 2024 – AROCO, spol. s r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel


(Case T-614/24, AROCO)

(C/2025/583)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AROCO, spol. s r.o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with the obligation of a Member State to apply the exemption from duty set out in Article 27(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to render an exemption for additives (ethyl alcohol-based flavours falling under CN code 330210) conditional on the flavours being demonstrably used for the preparation of foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2 % vol., and not on the fact that those additives are simply intended for that purpose?










2.


Is a Member State, pursuant to Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, entitled to set conditions for the application of an exemption from duty in order to ensure the correct and unambiguous application of these exemptions and to prevent tax evasion, avoidance or abuse, if those conditions mean that the exemption may be claimed only by the first person that acquired the flavours when they were removed from the duty suspension arrangement, that person him or herself having demonstrably used the flavours for the preparation of foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2 % vol.?






(1)  Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/583/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1169/23: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Interapothek v EUIPO – Q4 Media (miababy) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark miababy – Earlier EU figurative mark ia BABY interapothek – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, baby food, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_202500182EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/182


13.1.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2024 – Interapothek v EUIPO – Q4 Media (miababy)


(Case T-1169/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark miababy - Earlier EU figurative mark ia BABY interapothek - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/182)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Interapothek, SA (Santomera, Spain) (represented by: M. González Aleixandre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Q4 Media SRL (Poiana Câmpina, Romania) (represented by: L. Lucaci, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 October 2023 (Case R 1529/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Interapothek, SA, the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Q4 Media SRL each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1261, 12.2.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/182/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)