do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-789/24 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2024 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 September 2024 in Case T-381/15 RENV II, IMG v Commission
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU budget, financial regulation, implementation of the budget, indemnification, international organisation, legal expenses, legal person








C_202500155EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/155


13.1.2025






Appeal brought on 14 November 2024 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 September 2024 in Case T-381/15 RENV II, IMG v Commission


(Case C-789/24 P)

(C/2025/155)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: International Management Group (IMG) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2024 in Case T-381/15/RENV II, IMG v Commission;










—


consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance, as revised, and, accordingly,






—


order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, as amended in its observations after referral,










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs;














—


order the defendant to pay the entire amount of the costs in the cases registered under numbers T-381/15, T-381/15 RENV, C 620/20 P and T-381/15 RENV II and in the present appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant argues that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by errors of law in that it infringes the concepts of loss of opportunity, causal link and damage, and inasmuch as the General Court ruled ultra petita.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/155/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11418 – ADQ / EGPC / ETHYDCO / EDC / ELAB)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Egypt, economic concentration, gas industry, holding company, investment, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product








C_202407117EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7117


26.11.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11418 – ADQ / EGPC / ETHYDCO / EDC / ELAB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/7117)

On 14 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 32024M11418. 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/2024/7117/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-788/24, Anne Frank Fonds: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 November 2024 – Anne Frank Fonds v Anne Frank Stichting, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Vereniging voor Onderzoek en Ontsluiting van Historische Teksten
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, copyright, geo-blocking








C_202501214EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1214


3.3.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 November 2024 – Anne Frank Fonds v Anne Frank Stichting, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Vereniging voor Onderzoek en Ontsluiting van Historische Teksten


(Case C-788/24, Anne Frank Fonds)

(C/2025/1214)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anne Frank Fonds

Defendants: Anne Frank Stichting, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Vereniging voor Onderzoek en Ontsluiting van Historische Teksten

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the publication of a work on the internet is only to be regarded as a communication to the public in a particular country if the publication is addressed to the public in that country? If so, what factors must be considered in assessing that?










2.


Can there be a communication to the public in a particular country if, by means of (state-of-the-art) geo-blocking, it is ensured that the website on which the work is published can only be accessed by the public in that country by circumventing the blocking measure using a VPN or similar service? Is the extent to which the public in the blocked country is willing and able to access the website in question via such a service of relevance in that respect? In answering this question, does it make any difference whether, in addition to the measure of geo-blocking, other measures were taken to impede or discourage public access to the website in the blocked country?










3.


If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure entails the communication of the work published on the internet to the public in the blocked country within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive, is that communication made by the party who published the work on the internet, even though knowledge of that communication requires the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service in question?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1214/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-781/22 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2024 – LE v European Commission (Appeal – Projects funded by the European Union in the area of research – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Project ALL-GAS – Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 – Grant agreement – Consortium agreement – Exclusion of a participant – Ineligible costs – Debit notes – Article 299 TFEU – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Article 100(2) – Enforceable decision – Recovery decision – Action for annulment)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, consortium, debt, eligibility criteria, enforcement of ruling, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_202500128EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/128


13.1.2025






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2024 – LE v European Commission


(Case C-781/22 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Projects funded by the European Union in the area of research - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Project ALL-GAS - Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 - Grant agreement - Consortium agreement - Exclusion of a participant - Ineligible costs - Debit notes - Article 299 TFEU - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 - Article 100(2) - Enforceable decision - Recovery decision - Action for annulment)
(C/2025/128)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. André, E. Garello and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders LE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 63, 20.2.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/128/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-165/23: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2024 – European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species – Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 – Article 14(1) and (2) – Obligation to establish a surveillance system of invasive alien species of EU concern – Article 13(2) and (5) – Obligations to establish and implement one single action plan or a set of action plans and to transmit that or those action plans to the Commission without delay)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, data collection, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, infringement of EU law, invasive species








C_202500130EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/130


13.1.2025






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2024 – European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria


(Case C-165/23)
                (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species - Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 - Article 14(1) and (2) - Obligation to establish a surveillance system of invasive alien species of EU concern - Article 13(2) and (5) - Obligations to establish and implement one single action plan or a set of action plans and to transmit that or those action plans to the Commission without delay)
(C/2025/130)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova and S. Ruseva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to establish and implement one single action plan or a set of action plans and to transmit that or those action plans to the European Commission without delay, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species;










2.


Declares that, by failing to establish, or include in its existing system, a surveillance system of invasive alien species of EU concern, including all the information referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1143/2014, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1143/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species;










3.


Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 173, 15.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/130/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-230/23, Reprobel: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent – Belgium) – Reprobel CV v Copaco Belgium NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2 – Reproduction right – Article 5(2)(a) and (b) – Exceptions and limitations – Fair compensation – Direct effect – Entity entrusted by the State with collecting and distributing fair compensation – Special powers)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective activities, copyright, delegation of power, firm governed by commercial law, remuneration of work, reprography








C_202500132EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/132


13.1.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent – Belgium) – Reprobel CV v Copaco Belgium NV


(Case C-230/23,
                (1)
Reprobel)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2 - Reproduction right - Article 5(2)(a) and (b) - Exceptions and limitations - Fair compensation - Direct effect - Entity entrusted by the State with collecting and distributing fair compensation - Special powers)
(C/2025/132)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Reprobel CV

Defendant: Copaco Belgium NV

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
must be interpreted as meaning that an individual may rely, before a national court, against an entity entrusted by a Member State with collecting and distributing the fair compensation established under that provision, on the fact that the national legislation laying down that compensation contravenes provisions of EU law which have direct effect, provided that such an entity has, in order to perform that task in the public interest, special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals.










2.


Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29
must be interpreted as having direct effect, and that therefore, in the absence of a correct transposition of that provision, an individual may rely on it for the purposes of disapplying national rules under which that individual is obliged to pay remuneration by way of fair compensation imposed in contravention of that provision.






(1)  
            OJ C 252, 17.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/132/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-586/24: Action brought on 14 November 2024 – Doors Bulgaria v EUIPO – Top ten (Doors)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building materials, designs and models








C_202500401EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/401


27.1.2025






Action brought on 14 November 2024 – Doors Bulgaria v EUIPO – Top ten (Doors)


(Case T-586/24)

(C/2025/401)
Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Doors Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Top ten (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 3 119 601-0010 (Doors)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2024 in Case R 470/2024-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, declare the action before the Board of Appeal to be admissible and well founded and annul the decision of the Invalidity Division;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to decide on the merits of the action before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 57 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/401/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-116/23: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2024 – Medel and Others v Commission (Action for annulment – Regulation (EU) 2021/241 – Financing agreement and loan agreement concluded by the Commission and Poland – Trade association – Lack of direct concern – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU loan, Poland, corruption, economic recovery, economic reform, higher court, judge, rule of law








C_202500187EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/187


13.1.2025






Order of the General Court of 14 November 2024 – Medel and Others v Commission


(Case T-116/23)
                (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2021/241 - Financing agreement and loan agreement concluded by the Commission and Poland - Trade association - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2025/187)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel) (Strasbourg, France), International Association of Judges (IAJ) (Rome, Italy), Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ) (Trier, Germany), Stichting Rechters voor Rechters (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Zatschler, E. Egan McGrath, Senior Counsel, A. Bateman and M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, T. Adamopoulos and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, E. Rebasti and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the Financing Agreement and the Loan Agreement of 24 August 2022 concluded by the Republic of Poland and the European Commission pursuant to Article 15(2) and Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ 2021 L 57, p. 17).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel), International Association of Judges (IAJ), Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ) and Stichting Rechters voor Rechters shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










3.


The Council of the European Union and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/187/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-69/24: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2024 – Puma v EUIPO – Puma (puma acoustics) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark puma acoustics – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, product design, registered trade mark, research and development, sound insulation, trade-mark law








C_202500189EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/189


13.1.2025






Order of the General Court of 14 November 2024 – Puma v EUIPO – Puma (puma acoustics)


(Case T-69/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark puma acoustics - Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/189)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Puma Srl (Settimo Milanese, Italy) (represented by: E. La Malfa, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2023 (Case R 1400/2021-1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Puma SE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Puma Srl.










3.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/2324, 2.4.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/189/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-587/24: Action brought on 14 November 2024 – GE v Eurojust and Europol
Date: 2024-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, data recording, evidence, exchange of information, indemnification, operation of the Institutions, personal data, right to justice, transmission network








C_202500197EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/197


13.1.2025






Action brought on 14 November 2024 – GE v Eurojust and Europol


(Case T-587/24)

(C/2025/197)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GE (represented by: J. Reisinger, lawyer)

Defendants: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Determine and/or declare that the contested actions of Europol and/or Eurojust in context of the SKY ECC operation are in violation of EU law, and, furthermore, of Treaties, with the aim of awarding the applicant compensation under Articles 268, 277 and 340 of the TFEU, Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (and Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role in research and innovation), and Article 47 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA;










—


Award the applicant compensation of EUR 15,000 pursuant to Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with Article 340 TFEU;










—


Order the defendants to pay the legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging the breach by Europol and/or Eurojust’s of the applicant’s right to a fair trial.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging illegality and disproportionality in the acquisition and processing of data/personal data.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging lack of possibility to assess the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, or at least the lack of formal and substantive safeguards.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of (proven) adequate security in the acquisition and processing of the Sky ECC data.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/197/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)