do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-250/24: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Serana Europe v EUIPO – Cytogen Produkte für Medizin + Forschung (Lymphogrow) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Lymphogrow – Non-registered earlier signs Lymphogrow – Relative ground for refusal – Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, biotechnology, cytology, genetics, hiring, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503285EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3285


24.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Serana Europe v EUIPO – Cytogen Produkte für Medizin + Forschung (Lymphogrow)


(Case T-250/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Lymphogrow - Non-registered earlier signs Lymphogrow - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/3285)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Serana Europe GmbH (Pessin, Germany) (represented by: T. Bösling and I. George, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cytogen Produkte für Medizin + Forschung GmbH (Greven, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, J. Haßold and P. Richnow, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2024 (Case R 1707/2023-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Serana Europe GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CYTOGEN – Produkte für Medizin + Forschung GmbH;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C/2024/3801, 24.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3285/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-309/25, Enefit Green: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 April 2025 – Enefit Green SIA, Utilitas Wind SIA, TCK SIA, Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību VĒJA PARKS 10, EKO Ziemeļi SIA v Ministru kabinets
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, company with share capital, control of State aid, public sector, services of general interest








C_202503875EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3875


21.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 April 2025 – Enefit Green SIA, Utilitas Wind SIA, TCK SIA, Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību VĒJA PARKS 10, EKO Ziemeļi SIA v Ministru kabinets


(Case C-309/25, Enefit Green)

(C/2025/3875)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Enefit Green SIA, Utilitas Wind SIA, TCK SIA, Sabiedrības ar ierobežotu atbildību VĒJA PARKS 10, EKO Ziemeļi SIA

Institution responsible for the contested measure: Ministru kabinets

Questions referred







1.


Does the private market operator principle apply when assessing whether the measure provided for in the contested provision is consistent with the concept of State aid contained in Article 107(1) [TFEU]?










2.


If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 107(1) [TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the measure referred to in the contested provision is to be regarded as an advantage which a State-owned capital company could not obtain, under normal market conditions, from a private operator in the market?










3.


Must Article 107(1) [TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the measure provided for in the contested provision is not to be regarded as State aid for the purposes of that article, given that it constitutes compensation received by an undertaking for the discharge of public service obligations?










4.


If the measure provided for in the contested provision is to be regarded as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) [TFEU], can it, nevertheless, remain in effect until the Commission has made a decision regarding the compatibility of that aid with the internal market?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3875/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-370/24, Nastolo: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Lodi – Italy) – AT v CT (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Article 13(2) – Compensation scheme – Road traffic accident involving a stolen vehicle – Burden of proof in relation to the injured party’s knowledge of the theft of that vehicle – Body responsible for compensation – National legislation interpreted in such a way as to place the burden of proof on the injured party – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, insurance law, motor vehicle insurance, proof, theft, transport accident








C_202503254EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3254


24.6.2025






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Lodi – Italy) – AT v CT


(Case C-370/24,
                (1)
Nastolo)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 13(2) - Compensation scheme - Road traffic accident involving a stolen vehicle - Burden of proof in relation to the injured party’s knowledge of the theft of that vehicle - Body responsible for compensation - National legislation interpreted in such a way as to place the burden of proof on the injured party - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)
(C/2025/3254)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Lodi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AT

Defendant: CT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it is for the body specified in Article 10(1) of that directive to prove, in order to discharge itself from its obligation to pay compensation, that, in the event of a road traffic accident, the injured party who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury knew that it was stolen and, second, it precludes national case-law which interprets national legislation as meaning that, in such a situation, it is for that person to prove that he or she did not know that that vehicle had been stolen in order to obtain compensation for the harm he or she suffered.


(1)  OJ C C/2024/4846.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3254/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 29 April 2025
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202501963EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1963


30.4.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            29 April 2025
         
(C/2025/1963)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1373 




JPY


Japanese yen


162,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4636 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84980 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9620 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9392 




ISK


Iceland króna


146,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,8045 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,922 




HUF


Hungarian forint


404,04 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2708 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9777 




TRY


Turkish lira


43,7159 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7754 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5746 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8237 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9106 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4894 




KRW


South Korean won


1 632,79 




ZAR


South African rand


21,0942 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2715 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 059,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9217 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,802 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,031 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4326 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2948 




INR


Indian rupee


96,8227 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1963/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-400/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (2018 ex ante contributions) (Economic and monetary union – Banking union – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Single Resolution Fund (SRF) – Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions – Obligation to state reasons – Effective judicial protection – Equal treatment – Principle of proportionality – SRB’s discretion – Plea of illegality – Commission’s discretion – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, company in difficulties, discretionary power, equal treatment, financing plan, fund (EU), payment, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy








C_202503904EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3904


21.7.2025






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (2018 ex ante contributions)


(Case T-400/18)
                (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2018 
ex ante
 contributions - Obligation to state reasons - Effective judicial protection - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - SRB’s discretion - Plea of illegality - Commission’s discretion - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/3904)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: D. Ceran and T. Wittenberg, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision SRB/ES/2022/46 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 August 2022 withdrawing Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 of the SRB of 12 April 2018 on the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund in so far as it concerns the institutions mentioned in Annex I to this Decision and on calculating the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund of these institutions, to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Landesbank Baden-Württemberg shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the SRB.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3904/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Joined Cases C-554/23 P and C-568/23 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2025 – Fertilizers Europe and Commission v Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot (Appeal – Dumping – Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Request for an expiry review of anti-dumping measures – Time limit laid down in that provision for making such a request – Sufficiency of the evidence – Information submitted after the expiry of that time limit)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product, proof








C_202503244EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3244


24.6.2025






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2025 – Fertilizers Europe and Commission v Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’
               


(Joined Cases C-554/23 P
                (1)
and C-568/23 P)
                (2)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Request for an expiry review of anti-dumping measures - Time limit laid down in that provision for making such a request - Sufficiency of the evidence - Information submitted after the expiry of that time limit)
(C/2025/3244)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Fertilizers Europe (C-554/23 P) (represented by: J. Beck, advocaat, and L. Ruessmann, avocat), European Commission (C-568/23 P) (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (represented by: A. de Moncuit, E. Gergondet, N. Mizulin, A. Nosowicz, avocats, and P. Vander Schueren, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Fertilizers Europe (represented by: J. Beck, advocaat, and L. Ruessmann, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 July 2023, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’
                      v Commission (T-126/21, EU:T:2023:376);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C C/2023/209.

(2)  OJ C C/2023/960.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3244/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community – Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_202502599EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2599


30.4.2025






Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Imposition of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/2599)







Member State


France




Route concerned


Poitiers-Lyon (Saint-Exupéry)




Date of entry into force of the public service obligation


1 September 2025




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


Order of 21 March 2025 imposing public service obligations on scheduled air services between Poitiers and Lyon
NOR: ATDA2508393A
(https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000051381033)
For further information please contact:





Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile




DTA/SDS1




50 rue Henry Farman




75720 Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2599/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-202/23: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Kivikoski and Others v Council (Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2022 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 8 – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Demonstration of the prospect of promotion – Admissibility – Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations – Guiding multiplication rates – Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations – Comparison of merits)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, promotion, right of action, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202503275EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3275


24.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Kivikoski and Others v Council


(Case T-202/23)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2022 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 8 - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Demonstration of the prospect of promotion - Admissibility - Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations - Guiding multiplication rates - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of merits)
(C/2025/3275)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Ville Kivikoski (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium), Ottavia Maffia (Brussels, Belgium), Peter Pristovnik (Brussels) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 July 2022 not to promote them to grade AST 8 under the 2022 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 July 2022 not to promote Ville Kivikoski, Ottavia Maffia and Peter Pristovnik to grade AST 8 under the 2022 promotion exercise.










2.


Orders the Council to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 205, 12.6.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3275/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-312/25 P: Appeal brought on 30 April 2025 by EN against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2025 in Case T-366/24, EN v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, health insurance, pay, right of action, social-security contribution, staff regulations (EU)








C_202504140EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4140


4.8.2025






Appeal brought on 30 April 2025 by EN against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2025 in Case T-366/24, EN v Court of Justice of the European Union


(Case C-312/25 P)

(C/2025/4140)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: EN (represented by: A. Le Gouvello De La Porte, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 February 2025, EN v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-366/24, ECLI:EU:T:2025:164);










—


order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, EN relies on the following single ground:
The General Court erred in law by dismissing the action as inadmissible for lack of standing to bring proceedings on the part of the applicant, on the ground that, according to the General Court, since no change in the JSIS contribution rate had been adopted in connection with the establishment of a right to the reimbursement by the JSIS of elective treatments, the salary statement for December 2023 did not constitute an act affecting him adversely within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4140/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-679/20: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Dr. August Wolff v EUIPO – Combe International (Vagisan) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark Vagisan – Earlier national word marks VAGISIL – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom – End of the transition period during the court proceedings)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503274EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3274


24.6.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2025 – Dr. August Wolff v EUIPO – Combe International (Vagisan)


(Case T-679/20)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Vagisan - Earlier national word marks VAGISIL - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom - End of the transition period during the court proceedings)
(C/2025/3274)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and F. von der Decken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Combe International LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 September 2020 (Case R 2459/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3274/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)