do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-223/24 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 – Oil company Lukoil PAO v Transparency Register, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal – Law governing the institutions – Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register – Removal of the appellant from the Transparency Register – Notification of the decision by electronic means – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Action brought out of time)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic document, information system, interest group, interinstitutional agreement, limitation of legal proceedings, transparency in decision-making








C_202502174EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2174


22.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 – Oil company ‘Lukoil’ PAO v Transparency Register, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission


(Case C-223/24 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register - Removal of the appellant from the Transparency Register - Notification of the decision by electronic means - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Action brought out of time)
(C/2025/2174)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Oil company ‘Lukoil’ PAO (represented by: C. Alter and B. Lebrun, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Transparency Register, European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and L. Bratusca, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Burón Pérez and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Oil company ‘Lukoil’ PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C C/2024/3595.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2174/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-18/23, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Management form of a UCI): Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach – Poland) – F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63(1) TFEU – Free movement of capital – Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities – Corporation tax – Exemption from corporation tax for income received by such an undertaking – Conditions for exemption – External management of that undertaking – Directive 2009/65/EC – Article 29(1) – Applicability)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: UCITS fund, corporation tax, financial legislation, financial supervision, nationality of legal persons, securities, tax exemption, tax on investment income, taxable income








C_202502043EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2043


14.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach – Poland) – F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej


(Case C-18/23,
                (1)
Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (Management form of a UCI))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63(1) TFEU - Free movement of capital - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities - Corporation tax - Exemption from corporation tax for income received by such an undertaking - Conditions for exemption - External management of that undertaking - Directive 2009/65/EC - Article 29(1) - Applicability)
(C/2025/2043)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: F S.A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that only a collective investment undertaking managed by an external entity which carries on its business on the basis of an authorisation issued by the competent financial market supervisory authorities of the State in which that entity has its registered office, may benefit from the exemption from corporation tax in respect of income derived from investments made by that undertaking, and which therefore does not grant such an exemption to internally managed collective investment undertakings constituted in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, where the law of the first Member State authorises only the creation of externally managed collective investment undertakings.


(1)  
            OJ C 155, 2.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2043/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-164/25, Telekom Slovenije: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 27 February 2025 – T – 2 družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme d.o.o. v TELEKOM SLOVENIJE, d.d.
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, ordinary court of law, postal and telecommunications services, regulation of telecommunications, settlement of disputes, transmission network








C_202502842EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2842


2.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 27 February 2025 – T – 2 družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme d.o.o. v TELEKOM SLOVENIJE, d.d.


(Case C-164/25, Telekom Slovenije)

(C/2025/2842)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T – 2 družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme d.o.o.

Defendant: TELEKOM SLOVENIJE, d.d.

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (1)– and in particular the phrase ‘without prejudice to the possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’, in the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of that directive – be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a network operator has the right to submit a request for the settlement of a dispute concerning access to existing physical infrastructure either before the dispute settlement body or before an ordinary court?
Further, if the first question is answered in the negative:










2.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks be interpreted, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as precluding a national procedural rule under which dispute settlement proceedings before the national dispute settlement body are discontinued in the event that one of the parties, in the course of the dispute settlement proceedings before that body, institutes proceedings with the same subject matter before the competent court?






(1)  
            OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2842/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-220/24, Aeroportul Internaţional Avram Iancu Cluj: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Romania) – Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internaţional Avram Iancu Cluj v Consiliul Concurenţei (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Directive 96/67/EC – Access to the groundhandling market at EU airports – Article 1 – Scope – Airports whose annual traffic is less than two million passenger movements – Refusal of access to airport infrastructure at such an airport – Article 6 – Groundhandling for third parties – Applicability of the competition rules – Article 102 TFEU)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, competition law, ground handling, market access, provision of services, supplier








C_202502173EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2173


22.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Romania) – Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internaţional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj v Consiliul Concurenţei


(Case C-220/24,
                (1)
Aeroportul Internaţional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Directive 96/67/EC - Access to the groundhandling market at EU airports - Article 1 - Scope - Airports whose annual traffic is less than two million passenger movements - Refusal of access to airport infrastructure at such an airport - Article 6 - Groundhandling for third parties - Applicability of the competition rules - Article 102 TFEU)
(C/2025/2173)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Regia Autonomă Aeroportul Internaţional ‘Avram Iancu’ Cluj

Respondent: Consiliul Concurenţei

interested parties: Romanian Airport Services SA, Sindicatul Independent al Aeroportului Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports
must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 102 TFEU in circumstances where a supplier of groundhandling services has been refused access to the airport infrastructure, which is necessary for the provision of such services, of an EU airport whose annual traffic, on the date of that refusal, was less than two million passenger movements.


(1)  OJ C C/2024/4075.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2173/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-32/24 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 – OA v European Parliament (Appeal – Civil service – Staff Regulations of Officials – EU pension scheme – Article 77, third subparagraph – Scope of application – Accredited parliamentary assistant who has spent his entire professional career in the European Parliament – Interpretation consistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, professional career, retirement conditions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202502170EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2170


22.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2025 – OA v European Parliament


(Case C-32/24 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials - EU pension scheme - Article 77, third subparagraph - Scope of application - Accredited parliamentary assistant who has spent his entire professional career in the European Parliament - Interpretation consistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
(C/2025/2170)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: OA (represented by: F. Regaldo, avocat, and G. Rossi, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, M.J. Mão Cheia Carreira and R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders OA to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C C/2024/2726.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2170/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)