do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-330/25: Action brought on 27 May 2025 – Monster Computer Technology v EUIPO – Monster (MONSTER CABLE)
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503919EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3919


21.7.2025






Action brought on 27 May 2025 – Monster Computer Technology v EUIPO – Monster (MONSTER CABLE)


(Case T-330/25)

(C/2025/3919)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Monster Computer Technology GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and A. Glinke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Monster, Inc. (South San Francisco, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MONSTER CABLE’ – EU trade mark No 3 085 511
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2025 in Case R 111/2024-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 18, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3919/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-353/25, Tværkilde: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding (Denmark) lodged on 27 May 2025 – Anklagemyndigheden v T
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: goodwill, infringement of EU law, national competent authority, road transport, transport authorisation, transport company








C_202504039EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4039


28.7.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding (Denmark) lodged on 27 May 2025 – Anklagemyndigheden v T


(Case C-353/25, Tværkilde
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4039)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Kolding

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendant: T

Question referred

Must Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/403 (2) of 18 March 2016 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the classification of serious infringements of the Union rules, which may lead to the loss of good repute by the road transport operator, and amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/694 of 2 May 2022
             (3) amending Regulation (EU) 2016/403 as regards new serious infringements of the Union rules which may lead to the loss of good repute by the road transport operator
be interpreted as meaning that the national authority competent to decide on the withdrawal of a road transport authorisation is obliged to apply Regulation 2016/403 in connection with its assessment of whether an undertaking with a road transport authorisation satisfies the requirement of good repute laid down in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 1071/2009 in a situation where






(a)


the infringements of EU rules by the undertaking do not exceed the threshold set out in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2022/694; and










(b)


no lower threshold is established by the Member State?






(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 2016 L 74, p. 8.

(3)  
            OJ 2022 L 129, p. 22.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4039/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-354/25, Waisrinter: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2025 – R. SpA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, consumer information, drug surveillance, import, labelling, market approval, medicinal product, product life








C_202504737EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4737


8.9.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2025 – R. SpA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland


(Case C-354/25, Waisrinter
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4737)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: R. SpA

Defendant, respondent and respondent on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Intervener: A. AG

Question referred







1.


Do the labelling requirements laid down in Articles 54, 55(3) and 63(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) apply to a medicinal product for which a marketing authorisation has been issued in a Member State and the importation of which into another Member State constitutes a parallel import in relation to a medicinal product already covered by a marketing authorisation in that second Member State?










2.


Must Article 63(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product is not intended to be delivered directly to the patient if it is classified as a medicinal product subject to medical prescription?










3.


Does Article 63(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC have direct effect, meaning that an operator wishing to import into Germany a medicinal product from another Member State may rely on that provision before the German courts against the defendant Federal Republic of Germany which has not transposed that provision into national law or has not transposed it fully?










4.


Do Articles 34 and 36 TFEU preclude provisions of national and of EU law, which require the labelling of immediate packaging with certain minimum particulars in the language of the Member State of importation, being applied to a medicinal product imported in parallel, if it is not possible to relabel the immediate packaging of the medicinal product imported in parallel in order to comply with those labelling requirements because of a significant impairment to its shelf life which would result from this?






(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)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4737/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.12011 – PPF / ITIS HOLDING) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise, provision of services, software, technology, toll








C_202503090EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3090


27.5.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.12011 – PPF / ITIS HOLDING)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/3090)


1.   
On 20 May 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:






—


PPF a.s. (‘PPF’, Czech Republic), controlled by PPF Group N.V. (the Netherlands),










—


ITIS Holding a.s. (‘ITIS Holding’, Czech Republic).




PPF will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of ITIS Holding.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


PPF: Multinational finance and investment group focusing on financial services, consumer finance, telecommunications, biotechnologies, retail services, real estate and mechanical engineering,










—


ITIS Holding: Provider of solutions for infrastructure and toll systems, as well as producer of machine vision technology and software for image-based identification.






3.   
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.


4.   
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.12011 – PPF / ITIS HOLDING
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/2025/3090/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11986 – KKR / STONEPEAK / ASSURA) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, land and buildings, medical centre, merger control, property development








C_202503001EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3001


27.5.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11986 – KKR / STONEPEAK / ASSURA)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/3001)


1.   
On 21 May 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR & Co.’ USA),










—


Stonepeak Partners LP (‘Stonepeak’, USA) controlled by Michael Dorrell, and










—


Assura plc (the ‘JV’, UK).




KKR and Stonepeak will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 9 April 2025.


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






—


KKR is a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management as well as capital markets and insurance solutions,










—


Stonepeak is a global alternative investment firm specializing in infrastructure and real assets,










—


the JV is a specialist healthcare property investor and developer.






3.   
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.


4.   
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.11986 – KKR / STONEPEAK / ASSURA
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/2025/3001/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-356/25, Massey: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 27 May 2025 – Paddy Massey v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage
Date: 2025-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building permit, environmental impact, industrial project, power plant, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, wind energy








C_202504578EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4578


25.8.2025






Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 27 May 2025 – Paddy Massey v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage


(Case C-356/25, Massey)

(C/2025/4578)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paddy Massey

Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Questions referred

1. Does Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 (1) as applied to Directive 2009/147 (2) by Article 7 of the former Directive have the effect that a determination by a competent authority of a Member State as to whether or not a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of any site for the purposes of Directive 2009/147 is likely to have a significant effect on any such site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be carried out by reference to conservation objectives and/or measures established for any site concerned and/or in particular for any site which is proposed to be screened out of consideration as one unlikely to be significantly so affected?


(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; (OJ 1992, L 206; p. 7).

(2)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; (OJ 2010; L 20; p. 7).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4578/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)