do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-349/25: Action brought on 30 May 2025 – Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler v EUIPO – Snowacki and Others (G MOTION)
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, machinery, mechanical engineering, mechanical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503929EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3929


21.7.2025






Action brought on 30 May 2025 – Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler v EUIPO – Snowacki and Others (G MOTION)


(Case T-349/25)

(C/2025/3929)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: M. Barranco Rodriguez (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain), P. Barranco Schnitzler (Esplugues de Llobregat) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá and P. Bauzá Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariusz Snowacki (Toruń, Poland), Zbigniew Kilichowski (Toruń), Jarosław Osiński (Toruń), Łukasz Bubiłek (Toruń)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark G Motion – European Union trade mark No 18 768 430
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2025 in Case R 1752/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


authorize the nullity of the contested registration;










—


order the person who opposes this appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3929/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-355/25: Action brought on 30 May 2025 – DV v Council and Others
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU police mission, Palestine, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff assessment, work productivity








C_202504802EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4802


8.9.2025






Action brought on 30 May 2025 – DV v Council and Others


(Case T-355/25)

(C/2025/4802)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DV (represented by: A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European External Action Service, Mission de police de l’Union européenne pour les territoires palestiniens (EUPOL COPPS) (Ramallah, Israël)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the form adopted on 19 March 2025 by the Deputy Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS, finalizing the applicant’s Performance Improvement Plan process;










—


order the defendants to bear the applicant’s costs for the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to good administration and right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of essential procedural requirements.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to set objectives.










5.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty of care.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4802/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-352/25: Action brought on 30 May 2025 – WM v EIB
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, legality, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_202504180EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4180


4.8.2025






Action brought on 30 May 2025 – WM v EIB


(Case T-352/25)

(C/2025/4180)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WM (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the loss of chance resulting from the 30 September 2024 non-renewal of his contract;










—


order material damage to be assessed following the delivery of an interlocutory judgment;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant’s moral prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 60 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in support of the illegality of the non-renewal decision:






1.


First plea in law, alleging some manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation as well as misuse of power.




The applicant then exposes his prejudice and the link of causality between his prejudice and the illegality of the non-renewal decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4180/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-360/25, Schoger II: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 30 May 2025 – ***X*** v Finanzamt für Großbetriebe
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, VAT, banking, control of State aid, group of companies, insurance, pension fund, tax collection, tax exemption








C_202504879EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4879


15.9.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 30 May 2025 – ***X*** v Finanzamt für Großbetriebe


(Case C-360/25, Schoger II
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4879)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ***X***

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großbetriebe

Question referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is asked, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling on the question of whether the following exemption from value added tax (VAT) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:
Tax exemption applies to other services rendered between undertakings which primarily carry out banking, insurance or pension fund transactions, provided that those services are used directly to conduct the aforementioned exempt transactions, and for the provision of personnel by those undertakings to the groupings referred to in the first sentence above.


(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.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4879/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-351/25: Action brought on 30 May 2025 – NEAM v EUIPO – New Enterprise Associates (NEA)
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, investment, investment company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503931EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3931


21.7.2025






Action brought on 30 May 2025 – NEAM v EUIPO – New Enterprise Associates (NEA)


(Case T-351/25)

(C/2025/3931)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nord Est Asset Management SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Graffer, A. Ottolini and F. Chierichetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New Enterprise Associates, Inc. (Timonium, Maryland, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NEA – Application for registration No 18 778 721
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2025 in Case R 970/2024-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and declare that the evidences provided by the applicant is sufficient to prove that the earlier trademark has been genuinely used for the relevant services in the territory during the relevant period and, consequently,










—


remit the decision about the risk of confusion to the Board of Appeal;










—


order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Contradictory nature of the contested decision;










—


Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3931/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-353/25: Action brought on 30 May 2025 – JH v Ombudsman
Date: 2025-05-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, European official, abuse of power, staff regulations (EU), thesis








C_202503932EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3932


21.7.2025






Action brought on 30 May 2025 – JH v Ombudsman


(Case T-353/25)

(C/2025/3932)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JH (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 19 August 2024, formally requesting the applicant to amend his doctoral thesis, the decision of 23 August 2024 opposing the transfer of the applicant to the European Commission and the decision of 5 September 2024 requesting the applicant not to disseminate the original thesis;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 February 2025 rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action in so far as it is directed against the decision with regard to amending his doctoral thesis and the decision relating to the declaration of non-dissemination, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Ombudsman lacks competence to apply Article 17a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the scope of Article 17a of the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 17a(2) of the Staff Regulations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of diligence stemming from the principles of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and abuse of powers.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and the application of the concept of ‘serious prejudice to the legitimate interests of the Union’.




In support of the action in so far as it is directed against the decision refusing to transfer the applicant to the Commission, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, misuse of powers and abuse of powers.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3932/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)