do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-223/25, Finanzamt Siegburg: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2025 – BT and CY v Finanzamt Siegburg
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Switzerland, agreement (EU), craftsman, free movement of persons, household, personal income tax, provision of services, tax relief








C_202502848EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2848


2.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2025 – BT and CY v Finanzamt Siegburg


(Case C-223/25, Finanzamt Siegburg)

(C/2025/2848)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BT, CY

Defendant: Finanzamt Siegburg

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 2, 7 and 15 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1), read in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Annex I to that agreement, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State concerning the granting of an income tax reduction for services and craftsperson’s services provided or performed in a household where, under the terms of that legislation, the tax reduction is to be granted only if the services benefiting from the relief are performed or provided in a household located within the European Union or the European Economic Area, but is thus denied to employed persons from Switzerland working in the Member State in cases where services are provided in their household in Switzerland?


(1)  
            OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2848/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/394 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/394, 24.2.2025)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law, trade restriction




L_202590263EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90263


24.3.2025






Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/394 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2025/394, 24 February 2025
)

On page 16, Article 1, point (18)(f):







for:









‘(f)


paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

“7.   The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 5, 5a, 5b, 5c and 5g within two weeks of the authorisation.”’
;



,











read:









‘(f)


paragraph 5b is replaced by the following:

“5b.   The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraphs 4a, 4b, 4c, 4g and 5 within two weeks of the authorisation.”;’.











ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/394/corrigendum/2025-03-24/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-227/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by DR and DS against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2025 in Case T-182/24, DR and DS v EIOPA
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, fundamental rights, indemnification, interpretation of the law, legal expenses, staff regulations (EU)








C_202503267EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3267


24.6.2025






Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by DR and DS against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2025 in Case T-182/24, DR and DS v EIOPA


(Case C-227/25 P)

(C/2025/3267)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: DR, DS (represented by: N. Flandin, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the order under appeal;










—


grant the appellants the benefit of their submissions at first instance, and consequently:






—


declare the appellants’ action admissible;










—


declare the appellants’ action well founded in so far as:






—


the EIOPA has committed sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals, and in particular of Articles 8 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons regarding the processing of personal data;










—


the appellants have suffered a nonmaterial damage;










—


the non-material damage suffered by the appellants result directly from the above-mentioned illegalities;


















—


consequently:






—


order the compensation of the non-material damage suffered by the appellants;










—


order the EIOPA to pay all the costs in first instance and on appeal:
or, if that is not possible:










—


refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, the costs of the appeal being paid in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on two pleas in law:
First plea: Violation by the General Court of an essential procedural requirement – Insufficient motivation
Second plea: Violation by the General Court of the Union law – Error in law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply’ as laid down by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulation


(1)  
            OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3267/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-225/25, KORFIN and SEMPIOLA INVEST: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 24 March 2025 – KORFIN, s.r.o., and SEMPIOLA INVEST LIMITED v SLOVNAFT, a.s.
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company law, corporate governance, shareholding, takeover bid








C_202503266EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3266


24.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 24 March 2025 – KORFIN, s.r.o., and SEMPIOLA INVEST LIMITED v SLOVNAFT, a.s.


(Case C-225/25, KORFIN and SEMPIOLA INVEST)

(C/2025/3266)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants at first instance: KORFIN, s.r.o., and SEMPIOLA INVEST LIMITED

Defendant at first instance: SLOVNAFT, a.s.

Question referred

Must Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids be interpreted as meaning that a voluntary takeover bid can be made only if it has as its objective the acquisition of a controlling interest in the offeree company and, therefore, a voluntary takeover bid cannot be made by an entity which already has a controlling interest in the offeree company?


(1)  
            OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3266/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11897 – GROHE / VKB / SURU)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, indemnity insurance, insurance company, merger control, piping, provision of services, technology, water pollution, water supply








C_202501966EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1966


28.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11897 – GROHE / VKB / SURU)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1966)

On 24 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 32025M11897. 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/2025/1966/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2025/202 of 30 January 2025 fixing for 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2024/257 as regards fishing opportunities for 2025 (OJ L, 2025/202, 31.1.2025)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_202590267EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90267


24.3.2025






Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2025/202 of 30 January 2025 fixing for 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2024/257 as regards fishing opportunities for 2025
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2025/202, 31 January 2025
)

On page 95, in Annex IA, Part B, Table 84:

for:











 


 



‘Table




84



 




Species:


Plaice


Zone:


7d and 7e





Pleuronectes platessa



(PLE/7DE.)




Belgium


633


 


Analytical TAC




France


2 112 


 


 




Union


2 745 




(3)(4)




 




United Kingdom


1 177 




(1)(2)




 




TAC


3 922 


 


 




…’
               


read:











 


 



‘Table




84



 




Species:


Plaice


Zone:


7d and 7e





Pleuronectes platessa



(PLE/7DE.)




Belgium


542


 


Analytical TAC




France


1 807 


 


 




Union


2 349 




(3)(4)




 




United Kingdom


1 177 




(1)(2)




 




TAC


3 922 


 


 




…’.



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/202/corrigendum/2025-03-24/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-2/25, Helvetia Versicherungen: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof – Austria) – Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Helvetia Versicherungen AG
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, insurance contract, life assurance, termination of a contract








C_202503270EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3270


24.6.2025






Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof – Austria) – Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Helvetia Versicherungen AG


(Case C-2/25,
                (1)
Helvetia Versicherungen)

(C/2025/3270)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C C/2025/1634.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3270/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Decision No …/2024 of the Trade Committee established by the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, of the other part of … modifying Appendices 2, 2A and 5 to Annex II to that Agreement (OJ L, 2025/456, 10.3.2025)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Colombia, Ecuador, European Union, Joint Committee, Peru
Subjects: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, administrative cooperation, joint committee (EU), originating product, revision of an agreement, trade agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_202590270EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90270


24.3.2025






Corrigendum to Decision No …/2024 of the Trade Committee established by the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, of the other part of … modifying Appendices 2, 2A and 5 to Annex II to that Agreement
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 456 of 10 March 2025
)

This publication should be considered null and void.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/456/corrigendum/2025-03-24/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-226/25, VR Bank: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgerichts Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2025 – UR, VM v VR Bank Bodensee-Oberschwaben
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, indemnification, real estate credit, redemption








C_202503498EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3498


7.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgerichts Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2025 – UR, VM v VR Bank Bodensee-Oberschwaben


(Case C-226/25, VR Bank)

(C/2025/3498)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: UR, VM

Defendant: VR Bank Bodensee-Oberschwaben eG

Questions referred







1.


When calculating fair and objective compensation to which the creditor is entitled for costs directly linked to the early repayment of credit pursuant to Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU, (1) must the fact that the creditor has the opportunity to grant, as new credit, the remaining amount of the credit repaid early by the borrower be regarded as having a loss-reducing effect?
If answered in the negative:
In what other way can the referring court ensure that the creditor is not enriched by the hypothetical calculation of compensation pursuant to Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU?










2.


Does EU law allow the creditor to apply negative interest rates with respect to the hypothetical reinvestment of the amount of the credit repaid early when calculating the fair and objective compensation referred to in the first question above?






(1)  Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3498/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
C-443/24, Cajasur Banco: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Malaga – Spain) – Blanca v Cajasur Banco S.A.U. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings – Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for a response by the Court and the connection between the provisions of EU law whose interpretation is sought and the applicable national legislation – Lack of sufficient details – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law, consumer credit, consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_202502637EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2637


19.5.2025






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Malaga – Spain) – Blanca v Cajasur Banco S.A.U.


(C-443/24,
                (1)
Cajasur Banco)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for a response by the Court and the connection between the provisions of EU law whose interpretation is sought and the applicable national legislation - Lack of sufficient details - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2025/2637)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Málaga

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Blanca

Defendant: Cajasur Banco S.A.U.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga (Provincial Court, Málaga, Spain), by decision of 11 June 2024, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Date of filing: 19.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2637/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11898 – SONACA / GOVERA INVERSIONES / ACITURRI AERONAUTICA)
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Europe, North America, South America, aeronautical industry, economic concentration, engine, holding company, merger control, spare part, supplier








C_202501988EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1988


28.3.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11898 – SONACA / GOVERA INVERSIONES / ACITURRI AERONAUTICA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/1988)

On 24 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 32025M11898. 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/2025/1988/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-224/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by La Maison de l’Union syndicale against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-581/23, La Maison de l’Union syndicale v Council
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, admissibility, assistant, judicial review, promotion, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202503497EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3497


7.7.2025






Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by La Maison de l’Union syndicale against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-581/23, La Maison de l’Union syndicale v Council


(Case C-224/25 P)

(C/2025/3497)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: La Maison de l’Union syndicale (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare the direct action admissible;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits;










—


order the respondent to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance.





Ground of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in its application of Article 263 TFEU in that it interpreted and applied in an erroneously restrictive manner the conditions required by the Treaty to justify the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a legal person and, more specifically, by an organisation representing staff.
That restrictive interpretation concerns the conditions of direct and individual concern regarding the appellant, in breach of the functional interpretation to be given to the provision. Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted in such a way as to comply with the principle of procedural economy. That principle provides justification for the fact that an association may have an individual interest in representing its own interests but also the collective interests it defends. By its legal analysis of Article 263 TFEU, the General Court infringed the appellant’s right of access to the courts and its right to an effective remedy.
Depriving the appellant of the right to bring a direct action against the contested decision also deprives it, in the context of an agreement concluded between it and the Council, of the right to challenge the unlawful conduct of the respondent, based on the infringement of a contractual provision, and is therefore contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the right to effective judicial review designed to ensure compliance with EU law inherent in the rule of law.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3497/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 21 March 2025
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202501581EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1581


24.3.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            21 March 2025
         
(C/2025/1581)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0827 




JPY


Japanese yen


160,99 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4596 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83765 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9330 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9547 




ISK


Iceland króna


144,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,4010 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,981 




HUF


Hungarian forint


399,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2023 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9770 




TRY


Turkish lira


41,1528 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7240 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5551 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4166 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8821 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4452 




KRW


South Korean won


1 585,51 




ZAR


South African rand


19,6831 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8477 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 876,68 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7866 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,004 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


36,655 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1911 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9337 




INR


Indian rupee


93,1400 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1581/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)