do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-187/23: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission (Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Request for individual examination – Unduly burdensome – Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint – Article 3(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Article 9(2) and (4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Injury analysis – Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Union interest analysis – Manifest error of assessment – Error of law)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_202504446EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4446


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission


(Case T-187/23)
                (1)

(Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Request for individual examination - Unduly burdensome - Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint - Article 3(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 9(2) and (4) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Injury analysis - Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Union interest analysis - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law)
(C/2025/4446)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo (Medan, Indonesia), PT Nubika Jaya (Medan) (represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis and M. Van Luchene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Masi, G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia (OJ 2023 L 18, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4446/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.113383
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Finland, State aid, control of State aid, financial services, investment company








C_202503601EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3601


2.7.2025






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.113383
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/3601)








Date of adoption of the decision


19.5.2025




Aid number


SA.113383




Member State


Finland




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Consolidation of Finnish state-owned investment companies and capital injection into Suomen Teollisuussijoitus Oy (Tesi)




Legal basis


Act on Amending the Act on the State-Owned Company Called Finnish Industry Investment Ltd (Tesi), Act on Limited Liability Company Called Industrial State Aid Ltd




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


Suomen Teollisuussijoitus Oy (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) (Tesi)




Objective


Risk finance




Form of aid


Other forms of equity intervention




Budget


Overall budget: 300 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 100 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


From 31.5.2025




Economic sectors


Other financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding n.e.c.




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Economic Affairs and Economy




P.O.Box 32, 00023 Government








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/2025/3601/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-513/24: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Lunar Outpost v EUIPO (LUNAR OUTPOST) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark LUNAR OUTPOST – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, electronic device, environmental monitoring, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_202504459EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4459


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Lunar Outpost v EUIPO (LUNAR OUTPOST)


(Case T-513/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LUNAR OUTPOST - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/4459)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lunar Outpost Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: P. Van Eecke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2024 (Case R 2572/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C C,/2024/6949, 25.11.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4459/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-176/23: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – PT Musim Mas v Commission (Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint – Article 2(3) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Constructed normal value – Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Union interest analysis – Manifest error of assessment – Error of law)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), organic acid, originating product








C_202504445EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4445


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – PT Musim Mas v Commission


(Case T-176/23)
                (1)

(Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint - Article 2(3) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Constructed normal value - Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Union interest analysis - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law)
(C/2025/4445)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PT Musim Mas (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Masi, G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia (OJ 2023 L 18, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PT Musim Mas to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4445/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-435/25, Gut gekauft Reformhäuser: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2025 – Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v GUT GEKAUFT Reformhäuser GmbH
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, consumer information, cosmetic product, distributor








C_202505929EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5929


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2025 – Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v GUT GEKAUFT Reformhäuser GmbH


(Case C-435/25, Gut gekauft Reformhäuser)

(C/2025/5929)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Defendant: GUT GEKAUFT Reformhäuser GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a distributor who is not a responsible person within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, (1) in accordance with Article 6(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of that regulation, have reason to believe that advertising by a manufacturer is not in conformity with the requirements laid down in Article 20(1) of that regulation when it uses that advertising made available to it by the manufacturer for its own commercial purposes without examining whether the functions of the cosmetic product for which the advertising was made are adequately substantiated? Or does the distributor solely under certain conditions – and if so, which? – referred to in Article 6(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 have reason to believe that the advertising of the manufacturer which it uses is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 20(1) of that regulation and to examine whether the functions of the cosmetic product for which the advertising was made – are adequately substantiated?










2.


Do the provisions of Article 4(6) and Article 6(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (2) preclude advertising by a distributor in the form of a misleading statement taken over from the manufacturer concerning the functions of a cosmetic product being regarded as an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (4)(a) and Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5929/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-152/24: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – DB and Others v Parliament (Civil service – Officials – Retirement pension – Reforms of the Staff Regulations of 2004 and 2014 – Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights – Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Temporary agents who become officials – Annual rate of accrual of pension rights – Retirement age – Scope of the law – Equal treatment)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, amendment of a law, equal treatment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202504452EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4452


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – DB and Others v Parliament


(Case T-152/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement pension - Reforms of the Staff Regulations of 2004 and 2014 - Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights - Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Temporary agents who become officials - Annual rate of accrual of pension rights - Retirement age - Scope of the law - Equal treatment)
(C/2025/4452)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DB, DC, DD (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Bukšek Tomac and M. Mão Cheia Carreira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver, M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, A. Baeckelmans and G. Niddam, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 25 May 2023 determining DB’s retirement pension rights and the decisions of the Parliament of 4 July 2023 refusing the requests of DC and DD seeking the application of Articles 21 and 22 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the purpose of determining their retirement age and the annual rate of accrual of their pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DB, DC and DD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/2960, 6.5.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4452/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-228/24: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Emanuele and Hansen v Parliament (Civil service – Officials – Retirement pension – Reforms of the Staff Regulations of 2004 and 2014 – Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights – Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Temporary agents who become officials – Annual rate of accrual of pension rights – Retirement age – Scope of the law – Equal treatment)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, amendment of a law, equal treatment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202504453EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4453


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Emanuele and Hansen v Parliament


(Case T-228/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement pension - Reforms of the Staff Regulations of 2004 and 2014 - Transitional measures relating to certain methods for calculating pension rights - Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Temporary agents who become officials - Annual rate of accrual of pension rights - Retirement age - Scope of the law - Equal treatment)
(C/2025/4453)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Gianfranco Emanuele (Ceroux-Mousty, Belgium), Dorte Hansen (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Bukšek Tomac and M. Mão Cheia Carreira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Baeckelmans, M. Brauhoff and G. Niddam, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of 4 July 2023 refusing their request for the application of Articles 21 and 22 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the purpose of determining their retirement age and the annual rate of accrual of their pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Gianfranco Emanuele and Ms Dorte Hansen to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3786, 24.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4453/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-253/24: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – UV and Others v Commission (Civil service – Officials – Retirement pension – The 2004 and 2014 reforms of the Staff Regulations – Transitional measures relating to certain details in the calculation of pension rights – Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Members of the temporary staff who have become officials – Annual rate of acquisition of pension rights – Retirement age – Scope of the law – Equal treatment)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, amendment of a law, equal treatment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202504454EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4454


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – UV and Others v Commission


(Case T-253/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement pension - The 2004 and 2014 reforms of the Staff Regulations - Transitional measures relating to certain details in the calculation of pension rights - Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Members of the temporary staff who have become officials - Annual rate of acquisition of pension rights - Retirement age - Scope of the law - Equal treatment)
(C/2025/4454)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: UV, UW, UY, UZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Baeckelmans, M. Brauhoff and G. Niddam, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Bukšek Tomac and M. Mão Cheia Carreira, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and X. Chamodraka, Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2023 rejecting their requests for the application of Articles 21 and 22 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the purposes of determining their retirement age and the annual rate of acquisition of their pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UV, UW, UY and UZ to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3803, 24.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4454/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-402/24: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO – Grande Vitae (VITAE) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark VITAE – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_202504457EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4457


18.8.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2025 – Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO – Grande Vitae (VITAE)


(Case T-402/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark VITAE - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)
(C/2025/4457)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: L.M. Broschat García and L.M. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grande Vitae GmbH (Delmenhorst, Germany) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2024 (Case R 1156/2023-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Grande Vitae GmbH;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/5428, 16.9.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4457/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)