do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-294/25, AVEPA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 April 2025 – UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding UD e co., BF, in their own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding IJ, BP e LR s.s. v Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti (AVEPA)
Date: 2025-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, delivery, equal treatment, milk, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_202503873EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3873


21.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 April 2025 – UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding UD e co., BF, in their own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding IJ, BP e LR s.s. v Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti (AVEPA)


(Case C-294/25, AVEPA)

(C/2025/3873)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: UD, VO, GT and KJ, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding UD e co., BF, in their own name and as owner of the agricultural holding bearing the same name, IJ, BP and LR, in their own names and as members of the agricultural holding IJ, BP e LR s.s.

Respondent: Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti (AVEPA)

Question referred

Should [EU] law, in particular Articles 23 and 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (1) – and, before that, Articles 13 and 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (2) – and the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality, equality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that, in the event of delivery to a non-approved purchaser, requires that the milk or milk equivalent delivered is subject to an additional levy payable by the producer?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3873/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-257/25: Action brought on 17 April 2025 – Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e plus)
Date: 2025-04-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, civil engineering, computer equipment, electronic device, maintenance, provision of services, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_202503419EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3419


30.6.2025






Action brought on 17 April 2025 – Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e plus)


(Case T-257/25)

(C/2025/3419)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ePlus Inc. (Herndon, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark e plus – European Union trade mark No 23 689
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2025 in Case R 394/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court, the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










—


order any intervener to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to sound administration;










—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3419/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-261/25: Action brought on 17 April 2025 – LM v Commission
Date: 2025-04-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Hamburg, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, gaming establishment, tax relief, tax system








C_202503081EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3081


10.6.2025






Action brought on 17 April 2025 – LM v Commission


(Case T-261/25)

(C/2025/3081)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision (1) in so far as it lays down, in Article 1(2) thereof, that the scheme applicable to public casinos operators as from 1 January 2024 in the Land Hamburg (Law allowing a public casino, as amended by the Law of 21 December 2023) does not constitute State aid;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
It was found in the contested decision that in order to have the same tax burden on public casinos and gambling halls, the former must also be subject to the obligation to pay the entertainment tax. According to the statement in Article 1(2), the defendant used the so-called ‘Hamburg model’ and found that it removed the tax advantages of German public casinos. That, however, is not the case.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2025/317 of 20 June 2024 on the measures State Aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2016/FC) and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) – Tax treatment of public casinos operators – and alleged guarantee for public casinos operators (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie) – Germany (OJ. L, 2025/317).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3081/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-291/25 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2025 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2025 in Case T-743/21, Ryanair v Commission (TAP II; rescue aid; Covid-19)
Date: 2025-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, air transport, company in difficulties, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic








C_202503041EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3041


10.6.2025






Appeal brought on 17 April 2025 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2025 in Case T-743/21, Ryanair v Commission (TAP II; rescue aid; Covid-19)


(Case C-291/25 P)

(C/2025/3041)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, D. Pérez de Lamo and M. V. Paredes Balén, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2021) 5302 final of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57369 (2020/N) – Portugal – Rescue aid to TAP SGPS is void;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair in the first instance and on appeal, and order the other parties and interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs;




alternatively:






—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on six pleas in law.
First, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons in its interpretation of point 22 of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (1) (‘the Guidelines’).
Second, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons in rejecting the applicant’s claim that the Commission infringed point 8 of the Guidelines.
Third, the General Court erred in law, manifestly distorted the facts and failed to state reasons regarding its interpretation of the notion of common interest under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law and failed to state reasons regarding the applicant’s claim on the appropriateness of the aid.
Fifth, the General Court erred in law and failed to state reasons regarding the applicant’s claim on the proportionality of the aid under point 60 of the Guidelines.
Sixth, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s incomplete examination of the negative effects of the aid pursuant to the ‘balancing test’ of Article 107(3)(c).


(1)  
            OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3041/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-258/25: Action brought on 17 April 2025 – Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e plus+)
Date: 2025-04-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, civil engineering, electronic commerce, electronic device, maintenance, provision of services, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_202503420EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3420


30.6.2025






Action brought on 17 April 2025 – Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e plus+)


(Case T-258/25)

(C/2025/3420)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ePlus Inc. (Herndon, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark e plus+ – European Union trade mark No 4 609 061
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2025 in Case R 392/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Applicant in the proceedings before the General Court, the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO;










—


order any intervener to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to sound administration;










—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3420/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)