do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-371/25: Action brought on 5 June 2025 – Dentek Oral Care v EUIPO – Jeronimo Martins Polska (dentix)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202503934EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3934


21.7.2025






Action brought on 5 June 2025 – Dentek Oral Care v EUIPO – Jeronimo Martins Polska (dentix)


(Case T-371/25)

(C/2025/3934)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Dentek Oral Care, Inc. (Tarrytown, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative trade mark dentix –Application for registration No 18 888 344
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2025 in Case R 1922/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


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






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3934/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-359/24: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 – European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Framework for EU action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60/EC – Article 13(7) and Article 15(1) – River basin management plans – Second review and second update – Directive 2007/60/EC – Article 14(3) and Article 15(1) – Flood risk management plans – First review and, where applicable, first update – No obligation to notify the European Commission)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disaster resilience, environmental risk prevention, flood, infringement of EU law, watercourse








C_202504024EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4024


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 – European Commission v Hellenic Republic


(Case C-359/24)
                (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Framework for EU action in the field of water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 13(7) and Article 15(1) - River basin management plans - Second review and second update - Directive 2007/60/EC - Article 14(3) and Article 15(1) - Flood risk management plans - First review and, where applicable, first update - No obligation to notify the European Commission)
(C/2025/4024)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and S. Kamperou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by C. Kokkosi, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by having failed, within the applicable time limit, to review and update the river basin management plans and to send a copy of the updates to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(7) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;










2.


Declares that, by having failed to review and, if necessary, update the flood risk management plans and to make the reviewed and potentially updated version thereof available to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks;










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/3907.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4024/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-685/23, Corner and Border: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD) – Portugal) – Corner and Border S. A v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2008/7/EC – Article 5(2)(b) – Article 6(1)(d) – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Concept of other charges on land or other property – Stamp duty on guarantees provided for the purposes of the proper execution of a debenture loan)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: guarantee, indirect tax, stamp duty, tax law








C_202504016EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4016


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD) – Portugal) – Corner and Border S. A v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira


(Case C-685/23,
                (1)
Corner and Border)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/7/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Article 6(1)(d) - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Concept of ‘other charges on land or other property’ - Stamp duty on guarantees provided for the purposes of the proper execution of a debenture loan)
(C/2025/4016)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corner and Border S. A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2)(b) and Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the imposition of stamp duty on guarantees provided in the form of pledges of shares, bank account balances or receivables resulting from shareholder loans and in the form of transfers of receivables, for the purposes of the proper fulfilment of the obligations arising from a debenture loan issued by a capital company, in so far as those guarantees, even if they form an integral part of such a debenture loan, constitute other charges on land or other property within the meaning of Article 6(1)(d) in that they enable the holder of a receivable to obtain preferential or priority payment of that receivable in the event that the debtor does not honour its obligations.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/2008.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4016/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-372/25, Raiffeisenbank im Walgau: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 June 2025 – JT, WL v Raiffeisenbank im Walgau eGen
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, contract terms, foreign currency, mortgage, real estate credit, real property








C_202504973EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4973


22.9.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 June 2025 – JT, WL v Raiffeisenbank im Walgau eGen


(Case C-372/25, Raiffeisenbank im Walgau)

(C/2025/4973)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: JT, WL

Defendant: Raiffeisenbank im Walgau eGen

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4(28) of Directive 2014/17/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a loan is taken out jointly by two consumers and one of these, but not the other, satisfies the conditions laid down in (a) or (b) of that provision, the loan is still a foreign currency loan?










2.


Is Article 23 of Directive 2014/17/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, where a loan is taken out jointly by two consumers and one of them, but not the other, satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 4(28)(a) or (b) of that Directive, the consumer who satisfies those conditions may individually request the conversion of the loan into an alternative currency?
If the second question is answered in the negative:










3.


Is Article 23 of Directive 2014/17/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, where a loan is taken out jointly by two consumers and one of them, but not the other, satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 4(28)(a) or (b) of that Directive, the consumer who satisfies those conditions may request the conversion of the loan into an alternative currency with the consent of the other consumer or jointly with the other consumer?






(1)  Directive 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/2025/4973/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-749/23, innogy Energie: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Teplicích – Czech Republic) – innogy Energie s.r.o. v QS (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Articles 3, 5, 7 and the Annex, point 1(e) – Fixed-term electricity supply contracts – Term imposing a contractual penalty where payment is not made – Whether the amount of the penalty is proportionate – Whether the terms are in plain, intelligible language – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Inapplicability)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, energy supply, price fixed in advance, price of energy, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_202504017EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4017


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Teplicích – Czech Republic) – innogy Energie s.r.o. v QS


(Case C-749/23,
                (1)
innogy Energie)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 3, 5, 7 and the Annex, point 1(e) - Fixed-term electricity supply contracts - Term imposing a contractual penalty where payment is not made - Whether the amount of the penalty is proportionate - Whether the terms are in plain, intelligible language - Directive (EU) 2019/944 - Inapplicability)
(C/2025/4017)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Teplicích

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: innogy Energie s.r.o.

Defendant: QS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with the Annex thereto, point 1(e), and Article 7 of that directive,
must be interpreted as meaning that a term of a contract for the supply of electricity for a fixed term and at a fixed price allowing a supplier which has terminated that contract before its maturity on the ground of a failure to pay by the consumer to impose automatically on that consumer a flat-rate penalty, irrespective of the direct economic loss actually incurred by that supplier, may be regarded as unfair. That term meets the transparency requirements set out in Article 5 of Directive 93/13 if the structure and location of that term in the contract and the circumstances attending the conclusion, by electronic means, of that contract, including the information which the seller or supplier has provided to the consumer, are such as to allow an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to become acquainted with the substance and functioning of the term imposing on him or her payment of a flat-rate penalty and to evaluate the economic consequences which flow for him or her from that term.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/2012.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4017/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-349/24, Nuratau: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně – Czech Republic) – A.B. v Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 3 – More favourable standards – Subsidiary protection – Reason that has no direct link with the situation in the country of origin – Rationale of international protection)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, asylum seeker, foreign national, international protection, protection of privacy, refugee, right of asylum








C_202504023EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4023


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně – Czech Republic) – A.B. v Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky


(Case C-349/24,
                (1)
Nuratau
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 3 - More favourable standards - Subsidiary protection - Reason that has no direct link with the situation in the country of origin - Rationale of international protection)
(C/2025/4023)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.B.

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted
must be interpreted as precluding from being regarded as a more favourable standard, which may be adopted in accordance with that article, national legislation providing for the grant of subsidiary protection to a third-country national who, if removed to his or her country of origin, would face a real risk of suffering a breach of his or her right to private life on account of the severing of his or her links with the Member State examining the application for international protection.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/5073.

(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/2025/4023/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, State aid, communications policy, control of State aid, information








C_202503182EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3182


5.6.2025






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(C/2025/3182)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


19 February 2025




Case No


93440




Decision No


017/25/COL




EFTA State


Liechtenstein




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


State Aid scheme under the Media Support Act




Legal basis


Media Support Act of 21 September 2006, as amended (Medienförderungsgesetz), Ordinance on Media Support of 22 March 2016, as amended (Medienförderungsverordnung), Media Act of 19 October 2005, as amended (Mediengesetz)




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


To preserve the pluralism of opinions, to promote journalistic-editorial quality, as well as to facilitate the dissemination of opinion-shaping media in Liechtenstein




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


CHF 11,04 million




Intensity


25 %-75 %




Duration


Until 31 December 2029




Economic sectors


Information and communication




Name and address of the granting authority


Medienkommission
Äulestrasse 51
Postfach 684
9490 Vaduz




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3182/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-292/24, Iberia (Anticipatory complaint): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main – Germany) – AD v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal (Reference for a preliminary ruling – International air transport – Montreal Convention – Air carrier liability – Article 19 – Damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo – Article 31(2) – Timely notice of complaints – Complaint before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, damages, international convention, limitation of legal proceedings, passenger rights, personal effects








C_202504021EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4021


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main – Germany) – AD v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal


(Case C-292/24,
                (1)
Iberia (Anticipatory complaint))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - International air transport - Montreal Convention - Air carrier liability - Article 19 - Damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo - Article 31(2) - Timely notice of complaints - Complaint before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it)
(C/2025/4021)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: AD

Respondent: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA Operadora Unipersonal

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 31(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint due to a delay in the carriage of baggage may be made before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4712.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4021/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-82/24, Veolia Water Technologies and Others: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji w m.st. Warszawie S.A. v Veolia Water Technologies sp. z o.o., Krüger A/S, OTV France, Haarslev Industries GmbH, Warbud S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC – Principle of equal treatment – Obligation of transparency – Public works contract – Applicability by analogy to a public works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of rules on guarantees in respect of contracts for sale)
Date: 2025-06-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, public procurement, tendering, works contract








C_202504019EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4019


28.7.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji w m.st. Warszawie S.A. v Veolia Water Technologies sp. z o.o., Krüger A/S, OTV France, Haarslev Industries GmbH, Warbud S.A.


(Case C-82/24,
                (1)
Veolia Water Technologies and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC - Principle of equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Public works contract - Applicability by analogy to a public works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of rules on guarantees in respect of contracts for sale)
(C/2025/4019)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji w m.st. Warszawie S.A.

Defendants: Veolia Water Technologies sp. z o.o., Krüger A/S, OTV France, Haarslev Industries GmbH, Warbud S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency as referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors
must be interpreted as precluding the application by analogy to a works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of provisions of national law governing guarantees in respect of contracts for sale, the content of which was not expressly stated either in the tender documents or in the works contract, where the applicability of such provisions is not sufficiently clear and foreseeable to a reasonably informed tenderer exercising ordinary care.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/3890.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4019/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)