do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.11539 – LIBERTY MEDIA / DORNA SPORTS)
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, management, marketing, mass media, merger control, sporting event








C_202500295EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/295


7.1.2025






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.11539 – LIBERTY MEDIA / DORNA SPORTS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/295)

On 19 December 2024, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.11539 – LIBERTY MEDIA / DORNA SPORTS, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/295/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11791 – HIG CAPITAL / THOMA BRAVO / CERTAIN COMPTIA ASSETS)
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, education, information technology, investment company, merger control, provision of services, software, vocational training








C_202500293EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/293


8.1.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11791 – HIG CAPITAL / THOMA BRAVO / CERTAIN COMPTIA ASSETS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/293)

On 19 December 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 32024M11791. 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/2025/293/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-157/23, Ford Italia: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione – Italy) – Ford Italia SpA v ZP, Stracciari SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374/EEC – Article 3(1) – Concept of producer – Concept of a person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer – Conditions – Supplier whose name is the same in part as that of the producer and as the trade mark put on the product by the producer)
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labelling, producer's liability, product designation, supplier, trade information








C_202501062EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1062


24.2.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione – Italy) – Ford Italia SpA v ZP, Stracciari SpA


(Case C-157/23,
                (1)
Ford Italia)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘producer’ - Concept of a ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ - Conditions - Supplier whose name is the same in part as that of the producer and as the trade mark put on the product by the producer)
(C/2025/1062)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ford Italia SpA

Respondents: ZP, Stracciari SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products
must be interpreted as meaning that the supplier of a defective product must be considered to be a ‘person who … presents him[- or her]self as … [a] producer’ of that product, within the meaning of that provision, where that supplier has not physically put his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, but the trade mark which the producer has put on that product is the same, on the one hand, as the name of the supplier or a distinctive element thereof, and, on the other hand, as the name of the producer.


(1)  
            OJ C 189, 30.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1062/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-660/24: Action brought on 19 December 2024 – G-Core Innovations v EUIPO – Coretransform (G CORE)
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, data governance, data processing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_202501116EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1116


24.2.2025






Action brought on 19 December 2024 – G-Core Innovations v EUIPO – Coretransform (G CORE)


(Case T-660/24)

(C/2025/1116)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: G-Core Innovations Sàrl (Contern, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coretransform GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark G CORE – Application for registration No 18 623 695
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2024 in Case R 2364/2023-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the trademark to be registered in respect of all the refused goods and services applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





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/2025/1116/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-295/23, Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Anwaltsgerichtshof – Germany) – Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft UG v Rechtsanwaltskammer München (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Establishing the applicable freedom – Services in the internal market – Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 15 – Requirements which relate to the shareholding of a company – A purely financial investor’s holding in a law firm – Revocation of that law firm’s registration with the professional body on account of that holding – Restriction on freedom of establishment and on the free movement of capital – Justifications based on protecting the independence of lawyers and recipients of legal services – Necessity – Proportionality)
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company member, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, lawyer, provision of services, right of establishment, share








C_202501063EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1063


24.2.2025






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Anwaltsgerichtshof – Germany) – Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft UG v Rechtsanwaltskammer München


(Case C-295/23,
                (1)
Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Establishing the applicable freedom - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Requirements which relate to the shareholding of a company - A purely financial investor’s holding in a law firm - Revocation of that law firm’s registration with the professional body on account of that holding - Restriction on freedom of establishment and on the free movement of capital - Justifications based on protecting the independence of lawyers and recipients of legal services - Necessity - Proportionality)
(C/2025/1063)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Anwaltsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft UG

Defendant: Rechtsanwaltskammer München

In the presence of: SIVE Beratung und Beteiligung GmbH, Daniel Halmer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(2)(c) and Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and Article 63 TFEU
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, under penalty of the law firm concerned having its registration with the bar association revoked, prohibits shares in that firm from being transferred to a purely financial investor who does not intend to exercise, in that firm, a professional activity covered by that legislation.


(1)  
            OJ C 286, 14.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1063/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-661/24: Action brought on 19 December 2024 – Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, damages, eligibility criteria, interest








C_202501234EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1234


3.3.2025






Action brought on 19 December 2024 – Czech Republic v Commission


(Case T-661/24)

(C/2025/1234)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Očková and J. Benešová, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the European Commission to pay the Czech Republic compensation of EUR 11 722,93 in respect of the damage sustained;










—


order the European Commission to pay, together with that compensation, default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until full payment, at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
By the present application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the Czech Republic seeks compensation for damage from the European Commission (‘the Commission’). That compensation for damage corresponds to interest at the rate of 3.5 % on the amount of EUR 151 116,65, which the Czech Republic paid into the Commission’s account on 10 August 2018 on the basis of Commission Implementing Decision 2018/873 (1) and which the Commission, in connection with the measures arising from the judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 in Case T-509/18 Czech Republic v Commission, repaid to the Czech Republic on 27 October 2020 without any interest.


(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 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 2018 L 152, p. 29).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1234/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-691/24, Heineken România: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) made on 19 December 2024 – Heineken România SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, cider, specification of tariff heading








C_202501242EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1242


3.3.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) made on 19 December 2024 – Heineken România SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili


(Case T-691/24, Heineken România)

(C/2025/1242)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Heineken România SA

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

In the interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014
             (2) and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) [No 2015/1754] of 6 October 2015, (3) must a beverage such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, composed of concentrated fermented apple juice (25 %), water, glucose-fructose syrup, malic acid, carbon dioxide, potassium metabisulphite, and various flavourings – and in which the proportion of alcohol derived from plants other than apples is equal at least to 48 %, 50 %, 51 %, 52 % or 53 % (depending on the type of Strongbow beverage, whether bottled in 33 cl bottles or in 40 cl cans) in comparison with the alcohol obtained from the fermentation of apples – but which has the organoleptic characteristics of cider, be classified under tariff headings 2206 00 31 , 2206 00 51 , 2206 00 81  or under tariff headings 2206 00 39 , 2206 00 59 ?


(1)  
            OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2014 L 312, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1242/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-883/24: Action brought on 19 December 2024 – European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, international sanctions, powers of the institutions (EU), qualified majority, unanimity








C_202500899EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/899


17.2.2025






Action brought on 19 December 2024 – European Parliament v Council of the European Union


(Case C-883/24)

(C/2025/899)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, D. Moore, M. Peternel, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 (1) of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, in so far as Article 4(1) provides for a decision ‘by unanimity’;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(2) TEU
The Parliament submits that, in Article 4(1) of the contested decision, the Council confers an implementing power on itself to later establish and amend the list in the Annex, which is otherwise blank, thereby operationalising the restrictive measures in question in respect of specific natural and legal persons, entities and bodies. Article 31(2) TEU explicitly provides that certain acts shall be adopted ‘by qualified majority’, notably ‘any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position’. By including the words ‘by unanimity’ in Article 4, the Council thus acted in infringement of the express wording of Article 31(2) TEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 40 TEU
The Parliament submits that the contested decision did not comply with Article 40 TEU, in so far as the words ‘by unanimity’ were added to Article 4(1) of the contested decision. The illegal procedural hurdle introduced by Council for itself under Article 4(1) of the contested decision adversely affects the subsequent decision-making procedure under Article 215 TFEU because the parallelism between the conditions under the CFSP in the TEU and the TFEU, both requiring qualified majority voting, is thereby set aside. The change from qualified majority voting to unanimity in the CFSP decision adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU thus affects the balance foreseen in the Treaties for this case and thereby changes the conditions for the adoption of the Regulation to be adopted under Article 215 TFEU.






(1)  OJ L, 2024/2643.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/899/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community – Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Bihor, Romania, air transport, intra-EU transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_202407530EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7530


19.12.2024






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/7530)







Member State


Romania




Route(s) concerned


Oradea (Romania) – Munich (Germany)




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 June 2025 – 31 May 2028




Address where the text and any information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligations can be obtained


For further information, please contact:





Bihor County Council




Parcul Traian 5, Oradea




ROMANIA




Tel. +40 259410181
Fax +40 259410182
Email address: pso@cjbihor.ro


mihaela.rosan@cjbihor.ro

Internet: www.cjbihor.ro/en/







ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7530/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-882/24 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2024 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-50/22, AL v Commission
Date: 2024-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, dependant, family benefit, foster parent, judicial review, right to an effective remedy, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501631EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1631


24.3.2025






Appeal brought on 19 December 2024 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-50/22, AL v Commission


(Case C-882/24 P)

(C/2025/1631)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement under appeal;










—


annul the decision of 22 October 2021 of the Director-General for Human Resources and Security of the Commission partially upholding, partially rejecting the appellant’s complaint of 22 June 2021 in what concerns the points for which that complaint was not upheld;










—


allow the appellant to raise in the future new related pleas in law as soon as new matters of law or facts will become available to him;










—


raise any motion of public interest as it considers fit;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law in relation to the first plea when it found that the Commission had correctly applied Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Council Decision of 29 April 2004 adopting the general implementing provisions concerning a person treated as a dependent child.
Second, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the appellant’s fourth plea as unfounded:






—


The General Court failed to consider the existence of the judgment of the Bucharest Tribunal of 16 May 2022.










—


The General Court it erred in concluding that the decision of the Romanian child protection authorities of 30 January 2013, which had put an end to the appellant’s foster family placement measures, had produced legal effects since January 2013.










—


The General Court committed an error in law by failing to uphold the principle of the symmetry of forms.




Third, the General Court failed in its duty to guarantee the appellant’s right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as in its duty to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1631/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)