do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-188/25, Štátny fond rozvoja bývania: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 10 March 2025 – Štátny fond rozvoja bývania v GL, KL, SC
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, guarantee, higher court, subsidised housing, unfair terms of contract








C_202503495EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3495


7.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 10 March 2025 – Štátny fond rozvoja bývania v GL, KL, SC


(Case C-188/25, Štátny fond rozvoja bývania)

(C/2025/3495)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Štátny fond rozvoja bývania

Defendants: GL, KL, SC

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(c) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the Štátny fond rozvoja bývania (State Housing Development Fund), which has concluded with natural persons an agreement for assistance in connection with the provision of housing, is to be regarded as a ‘seller or supplier’ within the meaning of that provision of the directive, and that the agreement in question is covered by the scope of that directive?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a guarantee agreement concluded between a natural person and the State Housing Development Fund for the purpose of securing the performance of obligations arising from an agreement, where that natural person received no consideration from the Fund and acted for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does EU law preclude a legal opinion of a higher court from being binding on a lower court to which the case has been referred for further consideration, if, according to the legal opinion of the higher court, the State Housing Development Fund is not covered by the scope of Directive 93/13?






(1)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3495/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-173/25: Action brought on 10 March 2025 – BT GS Belgium v Commission
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, negotiated contract, public procurement, services contract, telematics, tendering, trans-European network, transmission network, transparency in decision-making








C_202502413EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2413


28.4.2025






Action brought on 10 March 2025 – BT GS Belgium v Commission


(Case T-173/25)

(C/2025/2413)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BT Global Services Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: V. Dor, A. Lepièce and M. Vilain XIIII, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 2024, (1) to award the contract with reference number DIGIT/2023/NP/0017 Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations – New Generation (TESTA-ng III), through a negotiated procedure without prior publication;










—


grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.





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 Commission erred in law, in that the conditions to use a negotiated procedure without a prior notice, according to Article 164(5)(f) of the Financial Regulation (2) and Point 11.1(c) of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, were not met, since the direct award was not strictly necessary for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events which were not attributable to the contracting authority.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law, in that the direct award of the contested contract aims at artificially narrowing competition in violation of the essential principles of fair competition, equal treatment and transparency.






(1)  OJ S 244/2024.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1). (Editorial note: this is the version of the Financial Regulation on which the applicant relies.)


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2413/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to the Case T-534/24 (OJ C, C/2024/7364, 16.12.2024)
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: criminal proceedings, economic offence, energy industry, excise duty, invoicing, purchase, supply, tax relief








C_202590018EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/90018


10.3.2025






Corrigendum to the Case C-534/24
(
Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2024/7364, 16 December 2024
)

The Case T-534/24, Gotek, should read as follows:

                  ‘
                  



Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Osijeku (Croatia) lodged on 8 October 2024 – MK v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak


(Case T-534/24, Gotek)
                                  (1)

(C/2024/7364)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Osijeku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MK

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Question referred

Must Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, (2) in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof, and/or Council Directive (EU) 2020/262 of 19 December 2019 laying down the general arrangements for excise duty (recast), (3) be interpreted as precluding national practice (and legislation) which provides for an obligation to pay excise duty on energy products where the excise goods have not been used and an excise duty liability has been established in respect of goods stated in falsified invoices for the purchase of energy products which, precisely because they have been falsified, do not give rise to the right to deduct input VAT because there are fictitious supplies of energy products, as has also been finally established in criminal proceedings?



                  ’
               


(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.

(2)  
            OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ L 58, 27.2.2020, p. 4 and corrigenda (OJ L 188, 27.7.2023, p. 60 and OJ L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 38).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7364/corrigendum/2025-03-10/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11780 – INGREDION / AGRANA / AGFD)
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Romania, agro-industry, economic concentration, fruit, maize, merger control, starch, sugar








C_202501708EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1708


17.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11780 – INGREDION / AGRANA / AGFD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1708)

On 10 March 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 32025M11780. 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/2025/1708/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11838 – GA / TA / TSYL TOPCO)
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, fire, investment company, merger control, meteorology, natural disaster, software








C_202501717EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1717


19.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11838 – GA / TA / TSYL TOPCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1717)

On 10 March 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 32025M11838. 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/2025/1717/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-171/25: Action brought on 10 March 2025 – Laboratorios Normon v Parliament and Council
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, extended producer responsibility, freedom of association, pharmaceutical industry, polluter pays principle, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, producer's liability, wastewater, water treatment








C_202502687EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2687


19.5.2025






Action brought on 10 March 2025 – Laboratorios Normon v Parliament and Council


(Case T-171/25)

(C/2025/2687)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Normon, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: T. Voland, U. Reese, M. Petite, P. Leven, L.-I. Dietz, M. Steininger and K. Schroeder-Finckh, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare null and void Article 1, Article 2(19), (20) and (26), Article 9, Article 10, Article 30(1) sub-paragraph 2(c) and (g) and Annex III of the Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (‘UWWTD’) (1);










—


in the alternative declare these provisions null and void to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


in the alternative declare null and void the entire UWWTD; and,










—


order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the same pleas in law as in Case T-156/25, Accord Healthcare France v Parliament and Council.


(1)  OJ 2024 L 3019.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2687/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-191/25, Wenzel Logistics: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 March 2025 – Wenzel Logistics GmbH v Mercedes-Benz Group AG
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, civil liability proceedings, damages, interest, price agreement








C_202503394EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3394


30.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 March 2025 – Wenzel Logistics GmbH v Mercedes-Benz Group AG


(Case C-191/25, Wenzel Logistics)

(C/2025/3394)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wenzel Logistics GmbH

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Other parties: MAN Truck & Bus SE, MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/104/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that Article 3(2), relating to the payment of interest for harm caused by a cartel, applies to actions for damages brought before a national court after 26 December 2014
If that question is answered in the negative: what other date should be used for the purpose of applying Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/104/EU?










2.


Should Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/104/EU be interpreted as meaning that the date on which the harm caused by a cartel and from which interest is payable on the harm caused by a cartel is to be regarded as the date on which the higher price resulting from a prohibited price-fixing arrangement was paid by the injured party?
If that question is answered in the negative: what other date should be used for the purpose of determining when the harm occurred?






(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3394/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-190/25, Zelabrich: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2025 – LS v GT
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, matrimonial law








C_202503393EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3393


30.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2025 – LS v GT


(Case C-190/25, Zelabrich)
                (1)

(C/2025/3393)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: LS

Respondent: GT

Questions referred







1.


Do Italian proceedings on the recognition of civil effects before the competent Corte d’Appello in Naples under Article 8(2) of the Agreement of 18 February 1984 between the Holy See and the Italian Republic, amending the ‘Concordato lateranense’ of 11 February 1929, constitute proceedings relating to marriage annulment within the meaning of Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa Regulation)? (2)











2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
Is a court first seised in Germany concerning a divorce to be decreed permitted, contrary to Article 19(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, to stay its proceedings under national rules in favour of the court second seised which has to rule on recognition of civil effects proceedings?






(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.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3393/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11872 – TRITON / KEENFINITY)
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building safety, computer system, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_202501720EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1720


18.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11872 – TRITON / KEENFINITY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1720)

On 10 March 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 32025M11872. 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/2025/1720/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 7 March 2025
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202501160EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1160


10.3.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            7 March 2025
         
(C/2025/1160)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0857 




JPY


Japanese yen


160,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4589 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84088 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9715 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9557 




ISK


Iceland króna


147,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7590 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,016 




HUF


Hungarian forint


399,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1788 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9757 




TRY


Turkish lira


39,5792 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7258 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5566 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4357 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9012 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4448 




KRW


South Korean won


1 570,47 




ZAR


South African rand


19,7306 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8561 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 664,39 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7934 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,129 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,518 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2617 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0490 




INR


Indian rupee


94,4435 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1160/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11897 – GROHE / VKB / SURU) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, indemnity insurance, insurance company, merger control, piping, property insurance, provision of services, technology, water pollution, water supply








C_202501604EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1604


10.3.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11897 – GROHE / VKB / SURU)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1604)


1.   
On 25 February 2025, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Grohe Holding GmbH (‘GROHE’, Germany), controlled by LIXIL Corporation (Japan),










—


Versicherungskammer Bayern Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts (‘VKB’, Germany),










—


SenseGuard GmbH (‘SURU’, Germany), currently controlled by GROHE.




GROHE and VKB will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of SURU.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


GROHE supplies bathroom solutions and kitchen fittings,










—


VKB is an insurance company offering a broad portfolio of insurances, including property insurance.






3.   

The business activities of the undertaking SURU are the following: SURU supplies pipe-related tap water damage prevention technologies and services.



4.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


5.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.11897 – GROHE / VKB / SURU
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal 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’).

(2)  
            OJ C 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1604/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)