do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-383/23, ILVA (Fine for an infringement of the GDPR): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret – Denmark) – Criminal proceedings against ILVA A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 83(4) to (6) and (9) – Concept of an undertaking – Parent company and subsidiary – Infringement of that regulation by a subsidiary – Calculation of the amount of the fine – Consideration of the total turnover of the group of which that subsidiary forms part)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, competition law, data protection, data-processing law, legal status, personal data, subsidiary, supervisory body, turnover, type of business








C_202501864EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1864


7.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret – Denmark) – Criminal proceedings against ILVA A/S


(Case C-383/23,
                (1)
ILVA (Fine for an infringement of the GDPR))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 83(4) to (6) and (9) - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Parent company and subsidiary - Infringement of that regulation by a subsidiary - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Consideration of the total turnover of the group of which that subsidiary forms part)
(C/2025/1864)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Party/parties in the main proceedings

ILVA A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 83(4) to (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), read in the light of recital 150 of that regulation,
must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘undertaking’ in those provisions corresponds to the concept of ‘undertaking’, within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, with the result that, where a fine for infringement of Regulation 2016/679 is imposed on a controller of personal data which is or forms part of an undertaking, the maximum amount of the fine is to be determined on the basis of a percentage of the undertaking’s total worldwide annual turnover in the preceding business year. The concept of ‘undertaking’ must also be taken into account in order to assess the actual or material economic capacity of the recipient of the fine and thus to ascertain whether the fine is at the same time effective, proportionate and dissuasive.


(1)  
            OJ C 304, 28.8.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1864/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-358/24: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Device of a cleaning capsule) (EU trade mark – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cleaning capsule – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502549EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2549


12.5.2025






Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Device of a cleaning capsule)


(Case T-358/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cleaning capsule - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/2549)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-C. Rebling, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 May 2024 (Case R 2560/2023-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/5120, 26.8.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2549/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-359/24: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Shape of a cleaning capsule) (EU trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cleaning capsule – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502550EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2550


12.5.2025






Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Shape of a cleaning capsule)


(Case T-359/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cleaning capsule - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/2550)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-C. Rebling, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 May 2024 (Case R 2563/2023-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/5121, 26.8.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2550/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-366/24: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – EN v Court of Justice of the European Union (Civil service – Officials – Social security – Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations – Article 3(1) of the Joint rules – JSIS contribution – Salary statement – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health insurance, pay, social-security contribution, staff regulations (EU)








C_202502553EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2553


12.5.2025






Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – EN v Court of Justice of the European Union


(Case T-366/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 3(1) of the Joint rules - JSIS contribution - Salary statement - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(C/2025/2553)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EN (represented by: A. Le Gouvello De La Porte, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: Á. Almendros Manzano and H. Salinas López, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of his salary statement for December 2023 and of all his subsequent monthly salary statements, in so far as they relate to his contribution to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the Institutions of the European Communities (JSIS).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.










3.


EN shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Court of Justice of the European Union.










4.


The Council and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/5641, 30.9.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2553/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-360/24: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Shape of a cleaning capsule) (EU trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cleaning capsule – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202502551EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2551


12.5.2025






Order of the General Court of 13 February 2025 – Reckitt Benckiser Finish v EUIPO (Shape of a cleaning capsule)


(Case T-360/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cleaning capsule - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/2551)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Reckitt Benckiser Finish BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-C. Rebling, lawyer)

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

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 May 2024 (Case R 2562/2023-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/5122, 26.8.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2551/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11853 – NOVO HOLDINGS / TA ASSOCIATES / BIOCOMPOSITES)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: calcium, chemical compound, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, medical device, merger control, special polymer








C_202501379EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1379


25.2.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11853 – NOVO HOLDINGS / TA ASSOCIATES / BIOCOMPOSITES)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1379)

On 13 February 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 32025M11853. 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/2025/1379/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-108/25: Action brought on 13 February 2025 – MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO – Rolls Royce Power Systems (V12X)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, engine, registered trade mark, right to property, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vessel








C_202501779EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1779


31.3.2025






Action brought on 13 February 2025 – MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO – Rolls Royce Power Systems (V12X)


(Case T-108/25)

(C/2025/1779)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: MAN Truck & Bus SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, J. Haßold und P. Richnow, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolls Royce Power Systems AG (Friedrichshafen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark V12X – EU trade mark No 18 707 743
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2024 in Case R 526/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for cancellation;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer it back to the Board of Appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to property.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1779/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-121/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 – Swissgrid AG v European Commission (Appeal – Internal market for electricity – Guideline on electricity balancing – Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – Article 1(6) and (7) – Transmission system operators (TSOs) – Participation in European platforms for the exchange of standard products for balancing energy – Article 263 TFEU – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Concept of challengeable act – Letter from the European Commission refusing the participation of a TSO operating in Switzerland in European platforms)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, energy supply, security of supply, trans-European network








C_202501862EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1862


7.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 – Swissgrid AG v European Commission


(Case C-121/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Internal market for electricity - Guideline on electricity balancing - Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 - Article 1(6) and (7) - Transmission system operators (TSOs) - Participation in European platforms for the exchange of standard products for balancing energy - Article 263 TFEU - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Concept of ‘challengeable act’ - Letter from the European Commission refusing the participation of a TSO operating in Switzerland in European platforms)
(C/2025/1862)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Swissgrid AG (represented by: P. De Baere, P. L’Ecluse, V. Lefever and K. T’Syen, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 December 2022, Swissgrid v Commission (T-127/21, EU:T:2022:868);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 127, 11.4.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1862/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joined Cases C-244/23 P to C-246/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 – European Commission and Others v Carpatair (Appeal – State aid – Aviation sector – Measures implemented by Timişoara International Airport (Romania) in favour of Wizz Air and other airlines using that airport – Decision finding that there is no State aid – Action for annulment – Article 263 TFEU – Admissibility – Condition that the applicant must be directly and individually concerned – Obligation to state reasons – Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2025-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, Timis, airline, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid








C_202501863EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1863


7.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2025 – European Commission and Others v Carpatair


(Joined Cases C-244/23 P to C-246/23 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aviation sector - Measures implemented by Timişoara International Airport (Romania) in favour of Wizz Air and other airlines using that airport - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Action for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Condition that the applicant must be directly and individually concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the evidence)
(C/2025/1863)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: European Commission (represented by: I. Georgiopoulos and F. Tomat, acting as Agents) (C-244/23 P), Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, S. Rating, abogado, and E. Vahida, lawyer) (C-245/23 P), Societatea Națională ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara – Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) (represented by: V. Power, Senior Counsel, and R. Hourihan, Solicitor) (C-246/23 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Carpatair SA (represented by: P. González Alarcón, J. Rivas Andrés, abogados, and J. Saké, advocaat), Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: I. G. Metaxas Maranghidis, dikigoros, S. Rating, abogado, and E. Vahida, lawyer), Societatea Națională ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara – Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) (represented by: V. Power, Senior Counsel, and R. Hourihan, Solicitor), European Commission (represented by: I. Georgiopoulos and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023, Carpatair v Commission (T-522/20, EU:T:2023:51);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 235, 3.7.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1863/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)