do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-118/25: Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Rizza v Commission
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, competition policy, form, legal aid, national competent authority








C_202502404EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2404


28.4.2025






Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Rizza v Commission


(Case T-118/25)

(C/2025/2404)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giulio Cesare Rizza (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Lodigiani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission’s decision of 6 December 2024, refusing within the meaning of Article 8(3) of EU Regulation 1049/2001 (1), to grant access to the blank form attached to the standard request for assistance under Article 22(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (2) from a national competition authority to the national competition authority of another Member State (the ‘document’), by failing to reply within the prescribed time limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application (the ‘decision’).










—


order the Commission to provide full access to the unredacted version of the document;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision and order the Commission to provide access to a redacted version of the document, in which only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I-III) is not disclosed; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision violated Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No. 1049/2001, by refusing full access to the document. Indeed, such disclosure would not, in any way undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations, contrary to what the Commission stated in its reply to the initial application.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that there is no need for the applicant to show the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure: the decision erred in considering that – although the Commission failed to demonstrate, in the first place, that access to the document would specifically and actually seriously undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations – the applicant was obliged to indicate an overriding public interest that could justify the disclosure of the document.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2404/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11890 – POLARIS MANAGEMENT / CSFI)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Northern Europe, credit, economic concentration, investment, investment company, merger control








C_202501593EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1593


7.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11890 – POLARIS MANAGEMENT / CSFI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1593)

On 17 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 32025M11890. 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/2025/1593/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Court of Appeal in the case of Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (Case E-2/25)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, environmental policy, hazardous waste, municipal waste, waste incineration








C_202503439EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3439


19.6.2025






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Court of Appeal in the case of Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment
(Case E-2/25)
(C/2025/3439)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting Lagmannsrett), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2025, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (Staten v/Klima- og miljødepartementet), on the following questions:






1.


Must the first activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC be interpreted as meaning that all installations for the incineration of hazardous or municipal waste are excluded from the scope of the Directive, including those which do not have waste incineration as their sole purpose, provided that they are used for the incineration of other waste only marginally?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative, what is to be the subject-matter of assessment and which factors are relevant in the assessment of the exception in the first activity listed in Annex I to the ETS Directive?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3439/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.102821
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, gas industry, gas pipeline








C_202501052EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1052


17.2.2025






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.102821
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1052)








Date of adoption of the decision


15.2.2024




Aid number


SA.102821




Member State


France




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


IPCEI Hy2Infra (RHATL)




Legal basis


Convention de gestion (convention cadre H2 datée signée avec la BPI)




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


Lhyfe




Objective


Execution of an important project of common European interest




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 305 870 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


1.3.2024 - 31.12.2027




Economic sectors


Manufacture of gas; distribution of gaseous fuels through mains




Name and address of the granting authority







DGE




61 boulevard Vincent Auriol 75703








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/2025/1052/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-115/25: Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Twinset v EUIPO – Christian Dior Couture (T inside a horizontal ellipse)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, cosmetic product, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202501899EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1899


7.4.2025






Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Twinset v EUIPO – Christian Dior Couture (T inside a horizontal ellipse)


(Case T-115/25)

(C/2025/1899)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Twinset SpA (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: I. Gatto, E. Barone and A. Landi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France)

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 T inside a horizontal ellipse – Application for registration No 18 659 646
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2024 in Case R 251/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1899/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-146/25 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2025 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 04 December 2024 in Case T-11/24, Puma v EUIPO – Li Puma (LaZZarO by Li Puma)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling








C_202504131EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4131


4.8.2025






Appeal brought on 17 February 2025 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 04 December 2024 in Case T-11/24, Puma v EUIPO – Li Puma (LaZZarO by Li Puma)


(Case C-146/25 P)

(C/2025/4131)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: M. Schunke, Rechtsanwalt, P. Trieb, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 25 June 2025, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4131/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-114/25: Action brought on 17 February 2025 – MAX magazín v EUIPO – RCS Mediagroup (MAX)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, book trade, newspaper, recording medium, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_202501781EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1781


31.3.2025






Action brought on 17 February 2025 – MAX magazín v EUIPO – RCS Mediagroup (MAX)


(Case T-114/25)

(C/2025/1781)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MAX magazín s. r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Santonocito, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RCS Mediagroup SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MAX – European Union trade mark No 500 389
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2024 in Case R 589/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to the extent it rejected the revocation of the trade mark at issue;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs for the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1781/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European cooperation, Frontex, Montenegro, agreement (EU), border control, external border of the EU, migration control, operation of the Institutions








L_202500331EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/331


17.2.2025






Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro

The Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Montenegro will enter into force on 1 March 2025, the procedure provided for in Article 22(2) of the Agreement having been completed on 29 January 2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/info/2025/331/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (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.102807
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, air conditioning, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy supply, gas supply








C_202501130EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1130


17.2.2025






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.102807
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1130)








Date of adoption of the decision


15.2.2024




Aid number


SA.102807




Member State


Netherlands




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


NL EZK-K&E-IPCEI Hy2INFRA (ex RHATL)-Notification




Legal basis


Kaderwet EZK- en LNV- subsidies




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


Project NL57: Vopak New Energy BV




Objective


Execution of an important project of common European interest




Form of aid


Other, Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 86 360 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


16.2.2024 - 31.12.2028




Economic sectors


ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY




Name and address of the granting authority







Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy




Bezuidenhoutseweg 73, 2594 AC Den Haag








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/2025/1130/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-145/25 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2025 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 04 December 2024 in Case T-30/24, Puma v EUIPO – Li Puma (Li Puma Design)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling








C_202504130EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4130


4.8.2025






Appeal brought on 17 February 2025 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 04 December 2024 in Case T-30/24, Puma v EUIPO – Li Puma (Li Puma Design)


(Case C-145/25 P)

(C/2025/4130)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: M. Schunke, Rechtsanwalt, P. Trieb, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 25 June 2025, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4130/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-116/25: Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Twinset v EUIPO – Christian Dior Couture (T TWINSET inside a horizontal ellipse)
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, cosmetic product, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202501900EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1900


7.4.2025






Action brought on 17 February 2025 – Twinset v EUIPO – Christian Dior Couture (T TWINSET inside a horizontal ellipse)


(Case T-116/25)

(C/2025/1900)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Twinset SpA (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: I. Gatto, E. Barone and A. Landi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France)

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 T TWINSET inside a horizontal ellipse – Application for registration No 18 659 641
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2024 in Case R 248/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1900/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.102825
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, gas industry, gas pipeline, regions of Germany








C_202501053EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1053


17.2.2025






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.102825
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1053)








Date of adoption of the decision


15.2.2024




Aid number


SA.102825




Member State


Germany




Region


BAYERN, BRANDENBURG, HAMBURG, HESSEN, MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN, NIEDERSACHSEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN, SAARLAND, SACHSEN, BREMEN, SACHSEN-ANHALT




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


IPCEI Hy2Infra




Legal basis


Bundeshaushaltsordnung; Bekanntmachung des Interessensbekundungsverfahrens zur geplanten Förderung im Bereich Wasserstofftechnologien und -systeme




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


ENERTRAG AG; EWE NETZ GmbH; EDL Anlagenbau Gesellschaft mbH; VNG Gasspeicher GmbH; Gasnetz Hamburg GmbH; RWE Gas Storage West GmbH; Thyssengas GmbH; Creos Deutschland Wasserstoff GmbH i.G; APEX Energy Teterow GmbH; AIR LIQUIDE Deutschland GmbH; RWE Hydrogen Lingen GmbH & Co. KG; Lingen Green Hydrogen GmbH & Co. KG (BP EUROPA SE, Orsted Wind Power Germany GmbH); Gasunie Deutschland Transport Services GmbH;EWE GASSPEICHER GmbH; JV (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries EMEA Ltd. Duisburg Branch; Shell Deutschland Oil G




Objective


Execution of an important project of common European interest




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 6 000 000 000  EUR




Intensity


Measure does not constitute aid




Duration


15.2.2024 - 30.6.2028




Economic sectors


Manufacture of gas; distribution of gaseous fuels through mains




Name and address of the granting authority







Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz | Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr




11019 Berlin








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/2025/1053/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.102811
Date: 2025-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Bratislava region, Slovakia, State aid, air conditioning, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy supply, gas supply








C_202501055EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1055


17.2.2025






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.102811
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1055)








Date of adoption of the decision


15.2.2024




Aid number


SA.102811




Member State


Slovakia




Region


Bratislavský kraj




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


IPCEI pre vodík, Technologická oblasť: H2Infra




Legal basis


Zákon č. 358/2015 Z. z. o úprave niektorých vzťahov v oblasti štátnej pomoci a minimálnej pomoci a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (zákon o štátnej pomoci)Zákon č. 121/2022 Z. z. o príspevkoch z fondov Európskej únie a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


eustream, a.s., Votrubova 11/A, 821 09 Bratislava, Slovenská republika




Objective


Execution of an important project of common European interest, Energy infrastructures




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 364 700 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


16.2.2024 - 31.12.2029




Economic sectors


ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministerstvo hospodárstva SR




Mlynské nivy 44/a, 827 15 Bratislava 212








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/2025/1055/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)