do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-343/25: Order of the General Court of 5 August 2025 – GEA J.-M. Vallotton et T. Chanard architects-urbanistes v Commission
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, contract terms, debt, eligibility criteria, interest, principle of proportionality, project funding








C_202505479EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5479


20.10.2025






Order of the General Court of 5 August 2025 – GEA J.-M. Vallotton et T. Chanard architects-urbanistes v Commission


(Case T-343/25)
                (1)

(C/2025/5479)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C, C/2025/4056, 28.7.2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5479/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-541/25: Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Qingdao Ecopure Filter v EUIPO – Waterdrop Microdrink (Waterdrop)
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, anti-pollution device, heating, household electrical appliance, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water, water treatment








C_202504989EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4989


22.9.2025






Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Qingdao Ecopure Filter v EUIPO – Waterdrop Microdrink (Waterdrop)


(Case T-541/25)

(C/2025/4989)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co. Ltd (Qingdao, China) (represented by: O. Günzel, A. Wenninger-Lenz and M. Felis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Waterdrop Microdrink GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Waterdrop – European Union trade mark No 18 492 910
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2025 in Case R 1696/2024-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4989/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-529/25, Consulting Finanse J_M Kresa: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 August 2025 – Consulting Finanse J&M Kresa sp. j. v Alior Bank S.A..
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, commission agent, remuneration of work, sales representative








C_202505936EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5936


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 August 2025 – Consulting Finanse J&M Kresa sp. j. v Alior Bank S.A.


(Case C-529/25, Consulting Finanse J&M Kresa)

(C/2025/5936)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Consulting Finanse J&M Kresa sp. j.

Defendant: Alior Bank S.A.

Question referred

Is it consistent with the content and purpose of Article 12(1) of Directive 86/653/EEC (1) to interpret that provision as meaning that the agent’s right to obtain from the principal a statement of the commission due to the agent is unenforceable, that is to say, that the commercial agent cannot assert that right by means of an action?


(1)  Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5936/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-536/25: Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Almaghout v Council
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, family, international sanctions, natural person








C_202504910EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4910


15.9.2025






Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Almaghout v Council


(Case T-536/25)

(C/2025/4910)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hala Almaghout (represented by: M. Lester, M. Birdling, Barristers-at-law, and G. Symeonidis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1095 of 27 May 2025 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1094 of 27 May 2025 maintaining the listing of the Applicant under Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended and Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended, insofar as they apply to the applicant;










—


order that the Council pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that her inclusion in the Contested Measures is a result of errors of assessment by the Council. In particular, she is no longer a member of the Makhlouf family, has no connection with the (former) Syrian regime, does not exercise influence over that (former) regime and does not pose a real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures and did not, therefore, satisfy the criteria set out in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and/or Regulation No 36/2012.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4910/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-528/25, Firmenauskunft PUR: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 5 August 2025 – LK v Firmenauskunft P.U.R. GmbH
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, contract, data-processing law, distance selling, mobile communication, personal data








C_202505675EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5675


3.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 5 August 2025 – LK v Firmenauskunft P.U.R. GmbH


(Case C-528/25, Firmenauskunft PUR)

(C/2025/5675)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: LK

Applicant and respondent: Firmenauskunft P.U.R. GmbH

Questions referred

Is EU law, in particular Article 13(3) and the second sentence of Article 13(5) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that
the effectiveness of those provisions requires that, in the context of the interpretation of national law, in particular the interpretation of general clauses of civil law,






(a)


natural persons acting in a business capacity as subscribers are also protected from unsolicited calls for advertising purposes (cold calling),










(b)


such calls are to be regarded as unlawful acts under national law,










(c)


protection against being taken by surprise is included in the scope of protection of such general clauses and










(d)


unsolicited contracts concluded on the basis of such calls are to be regarded as damage?






(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5675/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11998 – KKR / KARO HEALTHCARE)
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cosmetic product, economic concentration, food supplement, health care, investment company, medical device, medicinal product, merger control








C_202504545EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4545


12.8.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11998 – KKR / KARO HEALTHCARE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/4545)

On 5 August 2025, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32025M11998. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4545/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-535/25: Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Mhana v Council
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_202505355EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5355


13.10.2025






Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Mhana v Council


(Case T-535/25)

(C/2025/5355)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ghada Mhana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck, L. Jakobs and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1096 of 27 May 2025 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1094 of 27 May 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012;










—


declare that the Council has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to pay EUR 100 000 on a provisional basis;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 and Regulation (EU) 2015/1828
By her first plea, the applicant raises a plea of illegality and submits that Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 and Regulation (EU) 2015/1828, which purport to lay down the criteria on the basis of which the applicant’s name was included on the list at issue, are unlawful and, therefore, must be declared inapplicable under Article 277 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed errors of assessment
By her second plea, the applicant submits that the Council committed errors of assessment by maintaining her on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures on the basis of Article 27(2)(b) and Article 28(2)(b) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 15(1a)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. In that plea, the applicant claims inter alia that the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to conduct a periodic review by disregarding the changes in her individual situation and in the general situation in Syria.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights
By her third plea, the applicant submits that the acts in respect of which annulment is sought are inappropriate and unreasonable in so far as they concern her, having regard to the aim pursued by the Council. The applicant claims disproportionate interference with her fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5355/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-537/25: Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Gruppo San Michele and Bon Mense v Parliament
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Brussels region, award of contract, catering, general legal principle, public procurement, service concession, tendering








C_202505468EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5468


20.10.2025






Action brought on 5 August 2025 – Gruppo San Michele and Bon Mense v Parliament


(Case T-537/25)

(C/2025/5468)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Gruppo San Michele Srl (Rome, Italy), Bon Mense Srl (Moimacco, Italy) (represented by: C. Dony and M. Dheur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 6 June 2025 concerning the rejection of the applicants’ tender for Lot No 2 of the concession for the operation of food catering services in Brussels (CSC No06B40/2025/M002);










—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 21 July 2025 concerning the rejection of the applicants’ tender for Lot No 1 of the concession for the operation of food catering services in Brussels and the cancellation of the procedure for the award of Lot No 1 (CSC No06B40/2025/M002);










—


order that the applicants be compensated for the loss suffered as a result of those unlawful decisions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘the Financial Regulation’) (1) and, more specifically, of Articles 170, 173 and 174 thereof; infringement of Article 19 of and Annex I to the Financial Regulation; infringement of Article 15.2 of the special tender specifications No 06B40/2025/M002; infringement of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; (2) breach of the general principles, more specifically, of the principles of sound administration, formal statement of reasons, legitimate expectations and patere legem quam ipse fecisti; and manifest error of assessment.


(1)  OJ L, 2024/2509.

(2)  
            OJ 2016 C 202, p. 47.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5468/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-527/25, Blue Bird Liaison: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 5 August 2025 – SC Blue Bird Liaison SRL v Administrația Națională a Rezervelor de Stat și Probleme Speciale, SC Dolex Com SRL
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, public procurement, right to an effective remedy








C_202505935EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5935


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 5 August 2025 – SC Blue Bird Liaison SRL v Administrația Națională a Rezervelor de Stat și Probleme Speciale, SC Dolex Com SRL


(Case C-527/25, Blue Bird Liaison)

(C/2025/5935)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Blue Bird Liaison SRL

Respondents: Administrația Națională a Rezervelor de Stat și Probleme Speciale, SC Dolex Com SRL

Question referred

Does European Union law [and in particular Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, (1) and [the first paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] preclude national legislation that does not provide for any remedy against a final judicial decision rejecting an application by a tenderer for the annulment of an act of the contracting authority, without one or more arguments raised within the statutory time limit having been effectively examined?


(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5935/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-525/25, Transgourmet Österreich: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Steyr (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2025 – Transgourmet Österreich GmbH v Volkswagen AG
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approval, consumer protection, diesel engine, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, producer's liability, reduction of gas emissions, subsidiary, vehicle parts








C_202506488EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6488


15.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Steyr (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2025 – Transgourmet Österreich GmbH v Volkswagen AG


(Case C-525/25, Transgourmet Österreich)

(C/2025/6488)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Steyr

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Transgourmet Österreich GmbH

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2007/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 [September] 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), in the light of the judgment of [21] March 2023, Mercedes Benz Group, (3) be interpreted as protecting the specific interests of the individual purchaser of a motor vehicle vis-à-vis the manufacturer of the engine installed in that vehicle, where that engine has been equipped by its manufacturer with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 but the vehicle manufacturer within the meaning of Article 3(27) of Directive 2007/46 is not the engine manufacturer but a subsidiary that is 100 % beneficially owned by the engine manufacturer?


(1)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

(3)  Judgment of 21 March 2023, C-100/21, EU:C:2023:229.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6488/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.118317
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, carriage of goods, control of State aid, regions of Slovakia, rolling stock








C_202504409EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4409


5.8.2025






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.118317
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/4409)








Date of adoption of the decision


18.7.2025




Aid number


SA.118317




Member State


Slovakia




Region


Bratislavský kraj, Východné Slovensko, Stredné Slovensko, Západné Slovensko




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aid scheme for the acquisition of rail freight rolling stock




Legal basis


Act No 121/2022 on contributions from European Union funds and on the amendment of certain laws of 16 March 2022




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Coordination of transport




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 300 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 75 000 000  EUR




Intensity


50,0 %




Duration


Until 31.12.2029




Economic sectors


Freight rail transport




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministerstvo dopravy SR




Námestie slobody 6, 810 05 Bratislava








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/2025/4409/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12060 – ALPHABET / FOXCONN / JV)
Date: 2025-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: artificial intelligence, automation, economic concentration, electronics industry, joint venture, merger control, research and development, robotics, software, turnkey factory








C_202504652EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4652


14.8.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12060 – ALPHABET / FOXCONN / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/4652)

On 5 August 2025, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32025M12060. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4652/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)