do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-469/25, Henssen: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 July 2025 – DK v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Date: 2025-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Information System, discretionary power, public order, threat to national security, travel ban (EU)








C_202505930EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5930


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 July 2025 – DK v Minister van Asiel en Migratie


(Case C-469/25, Henssen
                (1)
)

(C/2025/5930)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: DK

Respondent: Minister van Asiel en Migratie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 (2) be interpreted as providing an exhaustive list of the situations in which a Member State may, pursuant to Article 24(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861, enter an alert in the SIS in respect of a foreign national for the purposes of refusing entry and stay?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Article 24(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 be interpreted as precluding a Member State from entering an alert in the SIS for the purpose of refusing entry and stay to a foreign national on the basis that that Member State has concluded that that foreign national constitutes a potential threat to public policy?










3.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what aspects may play a role in interpreting the concept of ‘threat to public policy’ in Article 24(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1861, given the broad discretion of the decision-making authority? Could factors such as whether or not there is suspicion of a criminal offence, whether fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are at stake, the social context in which the behaviour takes place and the proportionality of an alert in the SIS play a role in the interpretation of that concept?






(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)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 (OJ 2018 L 312, p. 14).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5930/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-470/25, E.: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 July 2025 – E. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Podkarpackiego Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa w Rzeszowie
Date: 2025-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, fraud against the EU, payment








C_202505569EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5569


27.10.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 July 2025 – E. sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Podkarpackiego Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa w Rzeszowie


(Case C-470/25, E.)

(C/2025/5569)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Podkarpackiego Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa w Rzeszowie

Question referred

Must the term ‘advantage’ used in Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (1) and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, (2) be interpreted as meaning failure to obtain or withdrawal of the entire payment arising from sectoral agricultural legislation, or only that part of the payment which arises from the creation of artificial conditions?


(1)  
            OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5569/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-478/25: Action brought on 17 July 2025 – Wizz Air Hungary and Wizz Air Malta v Commission
Date: 2025-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, air transport, capital increase, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, principle of proportionality








C_202505590EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5590


27.10.2025






Action brought on 17 July 2025 – Wizz Air Hungary and Wizz Air Malta v Commission


(Case T-478/25)

(C/2025/5590)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary), Wizz Air Malta ltd. (Luqa, Malta) (represented by: E. Vahida and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) 2025/775, of 29 April 2024 on the State aid SA.59344 – 2021/C (ex 2021/N, ex 2020/PN) – Restructuring aid to TAROM (1); and,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (‘R&R Guidelines’) because the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that TAROM does not belong to a larger business group.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the R&R Guidelines because the Commission failed to verify that TAROM has exhausted all market options.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching, and that it is apt to restore TAROM’s long-term viability within a reasonable period of time and without relying on further State aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the need for State intervention and its incentive effect.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the appropriateness of the aid.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish the proportionality of the aid.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision does not adequately review, and limit the negative effects of the aid.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.






(1)  OJ L 2025/775


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5590/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)