do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-578/25, Ariez: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Valladolid (Spain) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Oscar and Vanessa v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law, case-law (EU), direct applicability, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, principle of proportionality








C_202506490EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6490


15.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Valladolid (Spain) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Oscar and Vanessa v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria


(Case C-578/25, Ariez
                (1)
)

(C/2025/6490)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Valladolid

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Oscar and Vanessa

Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Questions referred







1.


Having conducted the assessment of proportionality in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 November 2024, (2) if it is found that point 2 of Article 487(1) of the TRLC does not observe the principle of proportionality, must that provision be considered to be contrary to Article 20 of Directive 2019/1023 (3) on restructuring and insolvency?










2.


Bearing in mind that, in accordance with national case-law concerning the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, we do not consider the principle of consistent interpretation to apply because it is not possible to reach a conclusion that is contra legem, what would be the practical consequences – potential direct effect of the directive in an upwards vertical direction – of the possible lack of proportionality of point 2 of Article 487(1) of the TRLC?






(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)  Judgment of 7 November 2024, Corván and Bacigán (C-289/23 and C-305/23, EU:C:2024:934).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency) (OJ 2019 L 172, p. 18).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6490/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-601/25: Action brought on 2 September 2025 – LH v Frontex
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, dismissal, equal treatment, maladministration, probationary period, servant (EU), staff assessment, working conditions








C_202505602EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5602


27.10.2025






Action brought on 2 September 2025 – LH v Frontex


(Case T-601/25)

(C/2025/5602)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: LH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 3 December 2024 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it supplements or amends the decision of 3 December 2024, the decision of 29 May 2025 rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 7 500 by way of compensation for non-material damage and EUR 4 524,68 by way of compensation for material damage resulting from the defendant’s misconduct;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging first of all, infringement of Article 1(1) of Decision No AAD-2023-075 of 20 April 2023 laying down the rules on setting of objectives for the assessment of performance of temporary and contract staff for their probationary period, as well as of seconded national experts at the start of their secondment; next, the existence of abnormal working conditions; and, last, unequal treatment because the objectives were not set within a month following the start of his employment and because that factor was not taken into account in the context of adoption of the decision adversely affecting him.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks predictability in so far as no negative remark had been made before the meeting relating to the probationary period.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the probation report is biased, lacks objectivity and is not founded on a substantiated, appropriate and sufficient factual basis.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance, including in the light of the objectives set six months after the start of his employment and having regard to his level of responsibility.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care, lack of proportionality, undue delay in the procedure and, in general, maladministration.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5602/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 2,15 % on 1 September 2025 – Euro exchange rates
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_202504485EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4485


2.9.2025






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

            2,15 % on 1 September 2025
         
Euro exchange rates (2)


            1 September 2025
         
(C/2025/4485)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1715 




JPY


Japanese yen


172,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4639 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86620 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0120 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9383 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7315 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,433 




HUF


Hungarian forint


395,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2553 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0737 




TRY


Turkish lira


48,1658 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7885 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6105 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1339 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9863 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5040 




KRW


South Korean won


1 632,32 




ZAR


South African rand


20,5948 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3581 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 249,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9496 




PHP


Philippine peso


66,985 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,845 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3587 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8009 




INR


Indian rupee


103,3225 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4485/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T- 595/25: Action brought on 2 September 2025 – Cornea Franz Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft v EUIPO – Keil (LeberGlück)
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, cosmetic product, essential oil, food supplement, medical plant, registered trade mark, tea, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_202505476EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5476


20.10.2025






Action brought on 2 September 2025 – Cornea Franz Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft v EUIPO – Keil (LeberGlück)


(Case T- 595/25)

(C/2025/5476)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Cornea Franz Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Weinzierl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maximilian Keil (Korschenbroich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LeberGlück’ – EU trade mark No 18 895 573
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2025 in Case R 2425/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;
in the alternative;










—


alter the contested decision and declare the registration of mark No 18 895 573 (LeberGlück) invalid;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5476/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12071 – AGRANA / AUSTRIA JUICE)
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: China, Europe, economic concentration, fresh fruit, fruit juice, merger control, pip fruit, processing industry, soft fruit








C_202504959EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4959


5.9.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12071 – AGRANA / AUSTRIA JUICE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/4959)

On 2 September 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 32025M12071. 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/2025/4959/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-575/25, Van Den Bosch Transport: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Van Den Bosch Transport KFT v Respondents
Date: 2025-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: case-law (EU), international road transport, personal income tax, social security legislation, wage earner, workplace








C_202600622EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/622


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2025 – Van Den Bosch Transport KFT v Respondents


(Case C-575/25, Van Den Bosch Transport)

(C/2026/622)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Van Den Bosch Transport KFT

Defendants: Respondents

Questions referred

When determining manifestly closer connection, can the Schlecker
             (1) criteria (and in particular the criterion of the country in which the employee pays taxes on income from employment and the country in which he or she is affiliated with social security) be applied in full in international road transport?
In the area of international road transport, what factors, in addition to or instead of the Schlecker criteria, may be of even greater (or principal) importance?
To what extent is it relevant, in that respect, that the affiliation with the social security schemes was not agreed upon by mutual consent between the parties, but was a unilateral decision by Van den Bosch Kft, or was imposed on [respondents] as a result of choices made by Van den Bosch Kft?


(1)  Judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker, C-64/12, EU:C:2013:551.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/622/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)