do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.116563
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, State aid, control of State aid, financial services, insurance








C_202500662EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/662


29.1.2025






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.116563
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/662)








Date of adoption of the decision


10.12.2024




Aid number


SA.116563




Member State


Cyprus




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Scheme for the management of loans granted under Government Housing Plans (OIKIA Scheme)




Legal basis


1. Decision of Council of Ministers of 22 April 2021, and 30 November 2022 “OIKIA Scheme – Scheme for the management of Loans granted within the Framework for the Government Housing Schemes and Article 35 of the Accounting and Financial Management and Financial Control of the Republic Law. (ΑΝΝΕΧ_Ι)2. Decision of the Council of Ministers 29/10/2024, 1306/2024 (ANNEX_ΙI & ANNEX_IIΙ)




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Social support to individual consumers




Form of aid


 




Budget


 




Intensity


 




Duration


1.1.2025 - 30.9.2025




Economic sectors


FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE ACTIVITIES




Name and address of the granting authority







Treasury of the Republic of Cyprus




Michael Karaoli & Gregori Afxentiou, 1439, Nicosia, Cyprus








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/2025/662/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1128/23: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Coswell v EUIPO (Biorepair) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU figurative mark Biorepair – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202501431EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1431


10.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Coswell v EUIPO (Biorepair)


(Case T-1128/23)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark Biorepair - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/1431)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Coswell SpA (Funo di Argelato, Italy) (represented by: P. Lazzarino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi, Agent)

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 26 September 2023 (Case R 1234/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Coswell SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/773, 22.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1431/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11787 – ARES / GCP)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Asia, Brazil, Europe, United States, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, land and buildings, logistics, merger control, storage








C_202501057EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1057


13.2.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11787 – ARES / GCP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1057)

On 29 January 2025, 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 32025M11787. 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/2025/1057/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1123/23: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Meucci v Parliament and EEAS (Civil service – Officials – Leaving the service – Automatic retirement – Request for maintenance in service beyond the retirement age – Limitation of the duration of maintenance in service beyond the retirement age – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Interest of the service – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, principle of legal certainty, reassignment, retirement conditions








C_202501430EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1430


10.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Meucci v Parliament and EEAS


(Case T-1123/23)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Leaving the service - Automatic retirement - Request for maintenance in service beyond the retirement age - Limitation of the duration of maintenance in service beyond the retirement age - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Interest of the service - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
(C/2025/1430)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Paolo Meucci (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr, R. Schiano and R. Rende Granata, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: R. Coesme, S. Falek and J. Lanzuela de Álvaro, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the European Parliament of 24 October 2023 authorising him to remain in service beyond the retirement age until 30 November 2023, second, of the decision of the Parliament of 24 October 2023 to second him in the interest of the service to the European External Action Service (EEAS) until 30 November 2023, third, of the decision of the Parliament of 9 November 2023 to reinstate him and automatically to retire him with effect from 30 November 2023 and, fourth, of the decision of the EEAS of 13 November 2023 to terminate his posting to the Delegation of the European Union to the African Union with effect from 30 November 2023.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Paolo Meucci to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/771, 22.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1430/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision of 15 May 2024 concerning the extension of the action taken by the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority permitting the making available on the market and use of the biocidal product Wofasteril® SC super in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C, C/2024/3111, 21.5.2024)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Malta, biocide, chemical product, decontamination, market approval, medical institution, pharmaceutical product








C_202590007EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/90007


29.1.2025






Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision of 15 May 2024 concerning the extension of the action taken by the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority permitting the making available on the market and use of the biocidal product Wofasteril® SC super in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2024/3111, 21 May 2024
)


The publication of Commission Implementing Decision C/2024/3111 is to be considered null and void.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3111/corrigendum/2025-01-29/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-276/20, B (Compensation for purchasers of vehicles fitted with defeat devices): Order of the President of the Court of 29 January 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt – Germany) – A. G. E. v B AG
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European standard, approval, damage, fundamental rights, indemnification, independence of the judiciary, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202502190EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2190


22.4.2025






Order of the President of the Court of 29 January 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt – Germany) – A. G. E. v B AG


(Case C-276/20,
                (1)
B (Compensation for purchasers of vehicles fitted with defeat devices))

(C/2025/2190)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2190/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joined Cases T-70/23, T-84/23 and T-111/23: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board (Protection of personal data – Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Binding decision instructing a lead supervisory authority to broaden the scope of its investigation and issue a new draft decision – Competence of the European Data Protection Board)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, personal data, powers of the institutions (EU), social media, supervisory body








C_202501640EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1640


24.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board


(Joined Cases T-70/23, T-84/23 and T-111/23)
                (1)

(Protection of personal data - Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Binding decision instructing a lead supervisory authority to broaden the scope of its investigation and issue a new draft decision - Competence of the European Data Protection Board)
(C/2025/1640)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Data Protection Commission (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Young, A. Bateman, R. Minch, M. Delargy, K. Donnelly, Solicitors, B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, D. Fennelly, E. Synnott and R. Costello, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (represented by: I. Vereecken, C. Foglia and M. Gufflet, acting as Agents, and by G. Ryelandt, E. de Lophem and P. Vernet, lawyers)

Re:

By its actions under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, which is the Irish supervisory authority for personal data protection, seeks annulment in part of Binding Decisions 3/2022, 4/2022 and 5/2022 of 5 December 2022 of the European Data Protection Board on the disputes between the supervisory authorities concerned arising from the Data Protection Commission’s draft decisions regarding, respectively, the social network Facebook, the social network Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp, in so far as those binding decisions require it to carry out new investigations into the processing of data carried out in connection with the use of those applications and to issue new draft decisions on the basis of the results thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions in Cases T 70/23, T 84/23 and T 111/23;










2.


Orders the Data Protection Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 127, 11.4.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1640/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-56/25, Petlichev: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 January 2025 – Criminal proceedings against MA
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, control of constitutionality, national law, primacy of EU law








C_202502513EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2513


12.5.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 January 2025 – Criminal proceedings against MA


(Case C-56/25, Petlichev)
                (1)

(C/2025/2513)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party to the main proceedings

MA

Question referred

Are Article 267 TFEU, Article 94(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law to be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has doubts as to the compatibility of a provision of national law with EU law, and is at the same time convinced that that provision of law is unconstitutional, it is obliged or entitled, before submitting its request for a preliminary ruling, to establish whether that provision of national law is indeed applicable in the main proceedings by making an application to the Konstitutsionen sad (Constitutional Court, Bulgaria) for a declaration as to its unconstitutionality?


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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2513/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-147/24: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Doorinn v EUIPO (Position of a label on a mattress) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU trade mark consisting of a position of a label on a mattress – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_202501433EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1433


10.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Doorinn v EUIPO (Position of a label on a mattress)


(Case T-147/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU trade mark consisting of a position of a label on a mattress - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/1433)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Doorinn GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez, Agent)

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 11 January 2024 (Case R 986/2023-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/2788, 29.4.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1433/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-6/24: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Northtechnic v Commission (Environment – Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 – Fluorinated greenhouse gases – Allocation of quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Commission Implementing Decision attributing a reference value – Method of calculation – Failure to take into account certain quantities of hydrofluorocarbons placed on the market – Article 16 and Annex V of Regulation No 517/2014 – Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU emission allowance, environmental standard, fluorine, greenhouse gas, market approval, production control, reduction of gas emissions, surveillance concerning imports








C_202501644EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1644


24.3.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2025 – Northtechnic v Commission


(Case T-6/24)
                (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Allocation of quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Commission Implementing Decision attributing a reference value - Method of calculation - Failure to take into account certain quantities of hydrofluorocarbons placed on the market - Article 16 and Annex V of Regulation No 517/2014 - Obligation to state reasons)
(C/2025/1644)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Northtechnic OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Y. Stoychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2432 of 26 October 2023 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 for each producer or importer which has lawfully placed hydrofluorocarbons on the market in the Union from 1 January 2015, as reported under that Regulation (OJ L 2023/2432), in so far as it concerns it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Northtechnic OOD to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/1554, 26.2.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1644/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-57/25: Action brought on 29 January 2025 – European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, admission of aliens, appeal, foreign national, infringement of EU law, judicial review, right of action, right to an effective remedy








C_202501533EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1533


17.3.2025






Action brought on 29 January 2025 – European Commission v Republic of Estonia


(Case C-57/25)

(C/2025/1533)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that Estonia has infringed its obligations under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 32(3), Article 34(7) and Article 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (Visa Code), since Estonia did not provide in its legal order that a third-country national could bring an action before a court within the meaning of EU law against thea decision concerning the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa;










—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Articles 32(3), 34(7) and 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (1) establishing a code on visas, foreigner nationals, whose visa application has been refused or whose visa has been annulled or revoked, have the right to appeal. Article 32(3) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to provide for a procedure concerning the challenge of a decision with respect to the refusal of a visa, the details of which are to be specified in the legal order of the individual Member State. That procedure at any stage thereof must ensure a judicial remedy.
Paragraphs 1001-10019 of the Estonian Law on foreign nationals introduced a system whereby a foreign national could seek a review of the decision with respect to the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa by the authorities who issued that decision; an application for an appeal against that decision could also be filed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of the Interior. In Paragraph 10018 of the Law on foreign nationals a direct prohibition was laid down in order to challenge such a decision in legal proceedings. The Commission is of the view that the challenge of a decision concerning the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa by an administrative authority, for example a ministry, which is neither independent nor impartial, cannot be viewed as an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 32(3), Article 34(7) and Article 35(7) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.


(1)  
            OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1533/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-58/25, Fremoluc and Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 29 January 2025 – Fremoluc NV, Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités ASBL v Vlaamse Regering
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Flanders (Belgium), State aid, control of State aid, decree, housing, national law, real property








C_202502360EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2360


28.4.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 29 January 2025 – Fremoluc NV, Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités ASBL v Vlaamse Regering


(Case C-58/25, Fremoluc and Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités)

(C/2025/2360)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Fremoluc NV, Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités ASBL

Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a measure such as that set out in Article 10 of the Decree of the Flemish Region of 23 June 2023‘on living in one’s own region’ constitutes new State aid which should have been notified to the European Commission?










2.


If the Grondwettelijk Hof (Constitutional Court, Belgium) were to conclude, on the basis of the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, that the aforementioned Decree of the Flemish Region of 23 June 2023 infringes the obligations arising from the provisions mentioned in that question, would it definitively be able to maintain the effects of the aforementioned Decree in order to respect the legitimate expectations of individuals who have acquired a piece of land or a dwelling pursuant to that Decree and to avoid the legal uncertainty that the retroactive effect of the annulment of that Decree could entail for those individuals, which could, in particular, adversely affect their housing situation?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2360/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)