do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-380/25: Action brought on 10 June 2025 – Pangeanic B I Europa v HADEA
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, audit, contract terms, eligibility criteria, wage cost








C_202504065EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4065


28.7.2025






Action brought on 10 June 2025 – Pangeanic B I Europa v HADEA


(Case T-380/25)

(C/2025/4065)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pangeanic B I Europa, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: S. Deswert and L. Hoffreumon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Health and Digital Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the defendant has breached certain articles of the grant agreements concluded with the applicant;










—


Declare that the defendant, in application of the grant agreements, has breached Decision C (2016) 478 of 3 February 2016 on the reimbursement of personnel costs of beneficiaries of the Connecting Europe Facility;










—


Acknowledge that the applicant has duly fulfilled its obligations and correctly implemented the actions under the grant agreements, and that the applicant is entitled to full payment of the grant amount;










—


By consequence, condemn the defendant to withdraw its payment order; not to issue any further payment order, nor to take any further recovery action;










—


In addition, taking into account the judgment to be issued, order the defendant to extend and take any necessary additional actions to implement the judgment, in relation to the audit of the eligible costs declared by applicant in accordance with the grant agreements;










—


In any case, condemn the defendant to the costs and expenses of the case, including the applicant’s legal fees.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of articles II.19.1, II.19.2 (a) of the grant agreements and Decision (2016) 478 of 3 February 2016 on the reimbursement of personnel costs of beneficiaries of the Connecting Europe Facility.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of article II.9.1 to the grant agreements by the defendant (costs related to subcontracting).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of article II.27.5, II.27.6, and II.27.7 of the grant agreements by the defendant (audit procedure).






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4065/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.116752
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, State aid, carriage of goods, control of State aid, rail transport








C_202503185EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3185


10.6.2025






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.116752
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/3185)








Date of adoption of the decision


28.4.2025




Aid number


SA.116752




Member State


France




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aide à l’exploitation d’un service d’autoroute ferroviaire entre les terminaux de Cherbourg et de Mouguerre




Legal basis


Convention de financement du projet de Développement d’un service de fret ferroviaire entre Mouguerre et Cherbourg




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


BAI RAIL SAS




Objective


Coordination of transport




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 8 363 813  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


1.5.2025 - 31.12.2027




Economic sectors


Freight rail transport




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministère de l'aménagement des territoires et de la décentralisation, Direction générale des infrastructures des transports et des mobilités




Tour Séquoïa 92055 La Défense Cedex








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3185/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-414/18: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (2018 ex ante contributions) (Economic and monetary union – Banking union – Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Single Resolution Fund (SRF) – Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions – Determination of the annual target level – Ceiling laid down in first and fourth paragraphs of Article 70(2)of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Principle of legal certainty – Right to effective judicial protection – Plea of illegality – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), legality, principle of legal certainty, right to an effective remedy








C_202504787EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4787


8.9.2025






Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (2018 ex ante contributions)


(Case T-414/18)
                (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions - Determination of the annual target level - Ceiling laid down in first and fourth paragraphs of Article 70(2)of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Principle of legal certainty - Right to effective judicial protection - Plea of illegality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/4787)
Language of the proceedings: German

Parties


Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: D. Ceran and C. Flynn, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant is seeking 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 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, in so far as it concerns the establishments referred to in Annex I to the present decision and calculates the 2018 ex ante contributions of those establishments to the Single Resolution Fund, in so far as concerns it.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4787/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-480/19: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (2019 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 2019 ex ante contributions – Obligation to state reasons – Effective judicial protection – Equal treatment – Principle of proportionality – Margin of discretion of the SRB – Plea of illegality – Margin of discretion of the Commission – Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, equal treatment, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), legality, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy








C_202504789EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4789


8.9.2025






Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (2019 ex ante contributions)


(Case T-480/19)
                (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 2019 
ex ante
 contributions - Obligation to state reasons - Effective judicial protection - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Margin of discretion of the SRB - Plea of illegality - Margin of discretion of the Commission - Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/4789)
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, F. Louis, P. Gey and G. Barthet, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision SRB/ES/2022/47 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 August 2022, withdrawing Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of the SRB of 16 April 2019 on the 2019 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund in so far as it concerns the institutions listed in Annex I to the present decision, and calculating the 2019 ex ante contributions of those institutions to the Single Resolution Fund, to the extent that Decision SRB/ES/2022/47 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 Single Resolution Board.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4789/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-381/25, Gexx aeroSol: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 10 June 2025 – PL, GQ v Gexx aeroSol GmbH
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract








C_202504739EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4739


8.9.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 10 June 2025 – PL, GQ v Gexx aeroSol GmbH


(Case C-381/25, Gexx aeroSol)

(C/2025/4739)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Cottbus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PL, GQ

Defendant: Gexx aeroSol GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 (‘Directive 2011/83/EU’) to be interpreted as meaning that an off-premises contract, within the meaning of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU, requires that both the offer and the acceptance of the contract be concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the contracting parties?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative: Is Directive 2011/83/EU to be interpreted as meaning that an off-premises contract, within the meaning of Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU, does not exist if the trader, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (‘the trader’), sends the consumer, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU (‘the consumer’), in advance an offer to conclude a contract which the consumer accepts off-premises in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader?










3.


Does the answer to the second question depend on whether consultations or negotiations took place or whether there was a certain period of time for reflection?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4739/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-380/25, Bellavista Società Agricola: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2025 – A.M., H.K. v Bellavista Società Agricola Ss
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural labour force, collective agreement, collective bargaining, farming sector, labour law, temporary employment








C_202504580EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4580


25.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2025 – A.M., H.K. v Bellavista Società Agricola Ss


(Case C-380/25, Bellavista Società Agricola)

(C/2025/4580)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: A.M., H.K.

Respondent: Bellavista Società Agricola Ss

Questions referred







1.


Must Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the rules of ordinary law governing fixed-term employment relationships, enacted in order to implement the abovementioned directive, are not applicable to employment relationships between agricultural employers and workers on fixed-term contracts?










2.


Must Clause 5 be interpreted as meaning that equivalent legal measures for the prevention of abuse, which take account of the needs of the agricultural sector, may include a measure laid down by the collective bargaining agreement signed by the social partners which provides for the right to convert a fixed-term contract into an indefinite-duration relationship in the case of an agricultural worker who performs 180 days of actual work on the same farm, to be calculated over 12 months from the date of recruitment, this being a right to be exercised within a six-month limitation period?






(1)  
            OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4580/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-377/25: Action brought on 10 June 2025 – Effeemme v EUIPO – Phoenix 1946 (Gattinoni)
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202504064EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4064


28.7.2025






Action brought on 10 June 2025 – Effeemme v EUIPO – Phoenix 1946 (Gattinoni)


(Case T-377/25)

(C/2025/4064)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Effeemme Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: I. Prado and B. Zamboni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Phoenix 1946 Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Gattinoni – EU trade mark No 002 742 948
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2025 in Case R 1909/2024-2

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 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4064/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-413/25, Peckeger: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2025 – F R v Finanzamt Österreich
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, property leasing, tax law, tax relief, taxpayer, transfer of property








C_202504618EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4618


25.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2025 – F R v Finanzamt Österreich


(Case T-413/25, Peckeger
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4618)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: F R

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Österreich

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the contribution of developed properties by a taxable person who has previously used those properties, through rental, for the purposes of (deductible) taxable transactions, to a company of which he or she is the sole shareholder (with the result that no additional company shares are issued for that contribution) is to be regarded as the supply of goods for consideration?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative: Is the first paragraph of Article 16 of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction described in the first question gives rise to the disposal free of charge by a taxable person, preceding the contribution, of goods forming part of his or her business assets or, more generally, their application for purposes other than those of his or her business?










3.


Does Article 19 of the VAT Directive preclude a national provision under which, in the event of a transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof (businesses or parts of businesses), it is considered that no supply of goods has taken place only in cases of reorganisation (which exists under national law only where those assets are used to generate certain kinds of income under national law on tax on profits)?










4.


Does Article 19 of the VAT Directive have direct effect such that a taxable person may rely on the no-supply rule before a national court against the competent tax authority if, before the Member State acceded to the European Union, the national legislature introduced a provision, retained since then, which is applicable only to certain cases, but not to business assets which are used to generate income (under national law on tax on profits) from rental and leasing?






(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)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4618/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-479/19: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (2019 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 2019 ex ante contributions – Determination of the annual target level – Cap provided for in the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Principle of legal certainty – Right to effective judicial protection – Plea of illegality – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), legality, principle of legal certainty, right to an effective remedy








C_202504788EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4788


8.9.2025






Order of the General Court of 10 June 2025 – Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (2019 ex ante contributions)


(Case T-479/19)
                (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 2019 
ex ante
 contributions - Determination of the annual target level - Cap provided for in the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Principle of legal certainty - Right to effective judicial protection - Plea of illegality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(C/2025/4788)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: D. Ceran and C. Flynn, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision SRB/ES/2022/47 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 August 2022 withdrawing Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of the SRB of 16 April 2019 on the 2019 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, in so far as it concerns the institutions mentioned in Annex I to the present decision, and calculating the 2019 ex ante contributions of those institutions to the Single Resolution Fund, to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4788/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 6 June 2025
Date: 2025-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202503102EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3102


10.6.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            6 June 2025
         
(C/2025/3102)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1411 




JPY


Japanese yen


164,62 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4595 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84260 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9590 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9383 




ISK


Iceland króna


144,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,5240 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,757 




HUF


Hungarian forint


403,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2870 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0452 




TRY


Turkish lira


44,7723 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7592 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5630 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9540 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8936 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4683 




KRW


South Korean won


1 551,09 




ZAR


South African rand


20,2736 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1955 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


18 615,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8274 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,631 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,211 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3685 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8225 




INR


Indian rupee


97,8360 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3102/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)