do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-419/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KP against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-673/21 AJ-REV, KP v Council and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, jurisdiction








C_202504744EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4744


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KP against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-673/21 AJ-REV, KP v Council and Others


(Case C-419/25 P)

(C/2025/4744)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KP (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 18 October 2021;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, KP v Council and Others (T-673/21 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4744/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-421/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by VZ against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-541/21 AJ-REV, VZ v Commission and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, human rights, judicial review, jurisdiction








C_202504746EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4746


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by VZ against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-541/21 AJ-REV, VZ v Commission and Others


(Case C-421/25 P)

(C/2025/4746)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: VZ (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 30 August 2021;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, VZ v Commission and Others (T-541/21 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.
Fourth, the Court of Justice should exercise its inherent powers to protect fundamental human rights by setting aside the order of the General Court made on 26 November 2021 because it is based on the order of 10 November 2021, KS and KD v Council and Others (T-771/20, not published, EU:T:2021:798), which the Court of Justice set aside on 10 September 2024. Otherwise, the appellant will be permanently denied access to justice before the EU Courts for the established breach of non-derogatory human rights on territory where the Union exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4746/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-420/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KM against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-773/20 AJ-REV, KM v Council and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, human rights, jurisdiction








C_202504745EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4745


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KM against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-773/20 AJ-REV, KM v Council and Others


(Case C-420/25 P)

(C/2025/4745)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KM (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 31 December 2020;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, KM v Council and Others (T-773/20 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.
Fourth, the Court of Justice should exercise its inherent powers to protect fundamental human rights by setting aside the order of the General Court made on 26 November 2021 because it is based on the order of 10 November 2021, KS and KD v Council and Others (T-771/20, not published, EU:T:2021:798), which the Court of Justice set aside on 10 September 2024. Otherwise, the appellant will be permanently denied access to justice before the EU Courts for the established breach of non-derogatory human rights on territory where the Union exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4745/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-422/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KN against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-675/21 AJ-REV, KN v Council and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, jurisdiction








C_202504747EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4747


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KN against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-675/21 AJ-REV, KN v Council and Others


(Case C-422/25 P)

(C/2025/4747)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KN (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 18 October 2021;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, KN v Council and Others (T-675/21 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4747/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-417/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KQ against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-674/21 AJ-REV, KQ v Council and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, judicial review, jurisdiction








C_202504742EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4742


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KQ against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-674/21 AJ-REV, KQ v Council and Others


(Case C-417/25 P)

(C/2025/4742)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KQ (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 18 October 2021;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, KQ v Council and Others (T-674/21 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4742/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-418/25 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KR against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-772/20 AJ-REV, KR v Council and Others
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, Kosovo question, damages, judicial review, jurisdiction








C_202504743EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4743


8.9.2025






Appeal brought on 21 June 2025 by KR against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2025 in Case T-772/20 AJ-REV, KR v Council and Others


(Case C-418/25 P)

(C/2025/4743)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: KR (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


grant legal aid to the appellant further to the application dated 31 December 2020;










—


grant costs of the appeal and the original application to the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the fact of a judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, (C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P, EU:C:2024:725), cannot constitute a fact for the purposes of Article 169(1) the Rules of Procedure.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to have regard for the fact that the correct interpretation of the law pre-existed the order of 26 November 2021, KR v Council and Others (T-772/20 AJ), because on 10 September 2024 the Court of Justice clarified the law as it has always been (ex tunc).
Third, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the application and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4743/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-403/25: Action brought on 21 June 2025 – Groupvet v EUIPO – Philipp (ALFAVET)
Date: 2025-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal nutrition, animal welfare, consultancy, cosmetic product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product, veterinary medicine








C_202504473EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4473


18.8.2025






Action brought on 21 June 2025 – Groupvet v EUIPO – Philipp (ALFAVET)


(Case T-403/25)

(C/2025/4473)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Groupvet EE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: O. Dimina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loretta Philipp (Hitzhusen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ALFAVET – Application for registration No 18 818 375
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2025 in Case R 1869/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it rejected the application for all goods in Classes 3, 10 (partially), 31, and services in Class 44;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs;










—


order the intervener, if any, to bear its own cost.





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 33(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of general principles of Union law to avoid the need for proof of use;










—


Infringement of the procedural rules of locus standi for filing an opposition.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4473/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)