do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-564/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lithuania v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Expenditure incurred by Lithuania – Flat-rate corrections – Effectiveness of checks – Proportionality)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_202500558EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/558


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lithuania v Commission


(Case T-564/23)
                (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Lithuania - Flat-rate corrections - Effectiveness of checks - Proportionality)
(C/2025/558)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: E. Kurelaitytė, V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina, A.-C. Becker and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Lithuania seeks the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1408 of 3 July 2023 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2023 L 170, p. 46), in so far as it concerns the Republic of Lithuania, in the amount of EUR 7 585 566,41 in respect of expenditure linked to cross compliance and of EUR 5 545 968,12 in respect of expenditure linked to voluntary coupled support.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2023/664, 13.11.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/558/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-804/24 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2024 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2024 in Case T-29/22, Polynt v ECHA
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, principle of proportionality








C_202503862EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3862


21.7.2025






Appeal brought on 20 November 2024 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2024 in Case T-29/22, Polynt v ECHA


(Case C-804/24 P)

(C/2025/3862)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: initially C. Mereu, avocat, and I. Zonca, advocaat, and subsequently C. Mereu, avocat, and M. Grassi, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
By order of 12 June 2025, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Polynt SpA should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3862/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-591/24: Action brought on 20 November 2024 – Sandoz v EUIPO – Be Healthy (ARYUNA)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, iodine, medical plant, medicinal product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500403EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/403


27.1.2025






Action brought on 20 November 2024 – Sandoz v EUIPO – Be Healthy (ARYUNA)


(Case T-591/24)

(C/2025/403)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sandoz AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Be Healthy d.o.o. (Kranj, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ARYUNA – Application for registration No 18 770 288
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2024 in Case R 2531/2023-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/403/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-39/24: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Laboratorio SYS v EUIPO – Dr. Babor (sYs) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark sYs – Earlier national figurative marks S&S cosmética natural – Relative ground for invalidity – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202500564EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/564


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Laboratorio SYS v EUIPO – Dr. Babor (sYs)


(Case T-39/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark sYs - Earlier national figurative marks S&S cosmética natural - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/564)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorio SYS, SL (Torrent, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dr. Babor GmbH & Co. KG (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2023 (Case R 2462/2022-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorio SYS, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Babor GmbH & Co. KG;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1712, 4.3.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/564/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-200/24: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Wonderbox v EUIPO – Swile (Wonderbox) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark Wonderbox – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – No independent subcategory)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic commerce, gift item, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, sales promotion, trade-mark law








C_202500566EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/566


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Wonderbox v EUIPO – Swile (Wonderbox)


(Case T-200/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Wonderbox - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No independent subcategory)
(C/2025/566)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Wonderbox (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Klimis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Swile (Montpellier, France)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2024 (Case R 776/2023-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/3351, 3.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/566/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-660/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission (Dumping – Subsidies – Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells originating in or consigned from China – Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Undertaking – Invalidation of undertaking invoices – Legal basis – Article 8(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 13(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 – Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 – Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 – Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, countervailing charge, import (EU), invoicing, originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal, solar collector








C_202500543EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/543


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission


(Case T-660/20)
                (1)

(Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties - Undertaking - Invalidation of undertaking invoices - Legal basis - Article 8(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 13(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 - Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and 2017/366 - Manifest error of assessment)
(C/2025/543)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd (Huzhou, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: BT Solar d.o.o (Varaždin, Croatia), RC-Log d.o.o., established in Koper (Slovenia) (represented by: A. Willems and B. Natens, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices [that it] issued … in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570 (OJ 2020 L 276, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders BT Solar d.o.o., RC-Log d.o.o. and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/543/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-68/24: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Solidexpert Polska v EUIPO (woodexpert) (EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark woodexpert – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cloud computing, furniture industry, product design, provision of services, registered trade mark, rental business, software, trade-mark law








C_202500565EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/565


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Solidexpert Polska v EUIPO (woodexpert)


(Case T-68/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark woodexpert - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/565)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solidexpert Polska sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 December 2023 (Case R 1788/2023-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/2323, 2.4.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/565/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.113443
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, State aid, animal production, control of State aid, crop production, hunting, service








C_202406989EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6989


20.11.2024






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.113443
(C/2024/6989)








Date of adoption of the decision


4.10.2024




Aid number


SA.113443




Member State


Germany




Region


Hessen




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Hessen: Integration naturbetonter Strukturelemente der Feldflur - C.3




Legal basis


Hessisches Programm für Agrarumwelt- und Landschaftspflege-Maßnahmen HALM 2




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid for agri-environment-climate commitments




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 63 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 3 000 000  EUR




Intensity


100,0 %




Duration


Until 31.12.2030




Economic sectors


Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities




Name and address of the granting authority







District administration authorities (Details provided in notification)




District administration authorities (Details provided in notification)








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/2024/6989/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-799/24, Babcock Montajes: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2024 – Babcock Montajes S.A. v Kanadevia Inova Steinmüller GmbH
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, ruling








C_202501079EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1079


24.2.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2024 – Babcock Montajes S.A. v Kanadevia Inova Steinmüller GmbH


(Case C-799/24, Babcock Montajes)

(C/2025/1079)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Babcock Montajes S.A.

Respondent: Kanadevia Inova Steinmüller GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the term ‘judgment’ in Article 36(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) to be interpreted to the effect that the court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation confers exclusive jurisdiction (Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Regulation) must recognise a judgment by which a non-designated court of a Member State finds that the courts of that Member State have international jurisdiction if the judgment in question is an interim judgment, in other words, is not a decision which terminates a dispute?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is, in principle, in the affirmative:
Does recognition of the interim judgment also depend on whether the interim judgment affirming the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State is binding on the non-designated court itself and/or whether the affirmation of international jurisdiction may be varied in the context of an appeal?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1079/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-508/22: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from EU financing – Expenditure incurred by Spain – Cross-compliance – Control of statutory management requirements)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_202500548EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/548


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Spain v Commission


(Case T-508/22)
                (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by Spain - Cross-compliance - Control of statutory management requirements)
(C/2025/548)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Pérez-Zurita Gutiérrez, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of Spain seeks the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2022 L 157, p. 15), in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain in the amount of EUR 9 968 215,15.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/908 of 8 June 2022 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as that decision excludes from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain, in the amount of EUR 9 968 215,15;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/548/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-464/23: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp) (Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a lamp – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2024-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_202500554EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/554


3.2.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024 – Lidl Digital International v EUIPO – Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting (Lamp)


(Case T-464/23)
                (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp - Grounds for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Duty to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
(C/2025/554)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ningbo Hanyuan Lighting Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: D. Pahl, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 June 2023 (Case R 599/2022-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/554/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)