do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-670/25, Elvada: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) made on 11 September 2025 – Elvada Company SRL v Ministerul Finanțelor – Autoritatea Vamală Română
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appeal, customs debt, customs duties, customs formalities, customs procedure suspending duties, discretionary power, exemption from customs duties, national competent authority, tariff exemption








C_202506305EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6305


1.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) made on 11 September 2025 – Elvada Company SRL v Ministerul Finanțelor – Autoritatea Vamală Română


(Case T-670/25, Elvada)

(C/2025/6305)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Elvada Company SRL

Respondent: Ministerul Finanțelor – Autoritatea Vamală Română

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 44, 116 and 121(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right to appeal against a notification of a customs debt and an application for remission are mutually exclusive and that the exercise of the right to appeal renders inadmissible any subsequent application for remission submitted before the conclusion of the judicial proceedings?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must Article 116(3) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may refuse to send the file to the Commission for a decision, if they themselves consider that the conditions for remission laid down in Article 119 of the regulation are not satisfied, in particular where that assessment is based on the existence of a non-final judicial decision, issued following the exercise of the right of appeal, which confirms the lawfulness of the decision taken by the customs authority?










3.


If the answer to the second question is that the customs authorities cannot refuse to send the file to the Commission for a decision, must Article 121(3) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that payment of the amount of import or export duty corresponding to a customs debt is suspended even if the application for remission is submitted after the expiry of the payment deadline?






(1)  
            OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6305/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-802/23, MSIG: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional – Spain) – Criminal proceedings against MSIG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Article 54 – Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle ne bis in idem – Concept of same acts – Member of a terrorist association found guilty, in a Member State, of involvement in that association with a view to preparing an act of terrorism – Prosecution in another Member State for the same terrorist acts)
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, principle of double jeopardy, terrorism








C_202505799EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5799


10.11.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional – Spain) – Criminal proceedings against MSIG


(Case C-802/23,
                (1)
MSIG)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle ne bis in idem - Concept of ‘same acts’ - Member of a terrorist association found guilty, in a Member State, of involvement in that association with a view to preparing an act of terrorism - Prosecution in another Member State for the same terrorist acts)
(C/2025/5799)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties in the main proceedings

MSIG

Interested party: Ministerio Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘same acts’ covers acts of which a person is accused in criminal proceedings brought in a Member State in respect of terrorist acts where that person has already been convicted in another Member State, for the same acts, of involvement in a terrorist association with a view to preparing a terrorist act.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/2725.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5799/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 10 September 2025
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202504492EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4492


11.9.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            10 September 2025
         
(C/2025/4492)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1707 




JPY


Japanese yen


172,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4651 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86500 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9510 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9338 




ISK


Iceland króna


143,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6195 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,388 




HUF


Hungarian forint


393,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2645 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0746 




TRY


Turkish lira


48,3323 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7720 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6224 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1189 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9704 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5017 




KRW


South Korean won


1 625,93 




ZAR


South African rand


20,5700 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3387 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 301,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9345 




PHP


Philippine peso


66,875 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,205 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3582 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8069 




INR


Indian rupee


103,1625 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4492/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11995 – PRADA / VERSACE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, cosmetic product, designs and models, economic concentration, luxury products industry, merger control








C_202505003EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5003


11.9.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11995 – PRADA / VERSACE)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5003)


1.   
On 2 September 2025, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Prada S.p.A. (‘Prada’, Italy),










—


Givi Holding S.r.l. (‘Versace’, Italy), ultimately controlled by Capri Holdings.




Prada will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Versace.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Prada owns a range of luxury brands, including Prada, Miu Miu, Church’s, Car Shoe, Pasticceria Marchesi 1824, and Luna Rossa. Prada designs, manufactures and distributes luxury goods and operates in the eyewear and beauty sectors,










—


Versace is a global designer, manufacturer, and distributor of luxury goods.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.11995 – PRADA / VERSACE
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  
            OJ C 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5003/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-619/25: Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Nayara Energy Limited v Council
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality








C_202506184EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6184


24.11.2025






Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Nayara Energy Limited v Council


(Case T-619/25)

(C/2025/6184)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nayara Energy Limited (Gujarat, India) (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart, J. Goffin and S. Napolitano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1478 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in the list contained in its annex,










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1476 of 18 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in the list contained in its annex; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors of assessment on the part of the Council.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the fundamental rights of the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the unlawfulness of the criteria set down in Article 3(1)(g) of the abovementioned Decision 2014/145 and in Article 2(1)(g) of the abovementioned Regulation 269/2014.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6184/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12106 – OAKTREE / SUP)
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Europe, North America, aluminium, economic concentration, investment, merger control, vehicle parts








C_202505105EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5105


16.9.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12106 – OAKTREE / SUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5105)

On 11 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 32025M12106. 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/2025/5105/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-620/25: Action brought on 11 September 2025 – LJ and Others v Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, whistleblowing, work contract








C_202506301EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6301


1.12.2025






Action brought on 11 September 2025 – LJ and Others v Eulex Kosovo


(Case T-620/25)

(C/2025/6301)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: LJ and five other applicants (represented by: A. Bzdyń, lawyer)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


find that the applicants’ employment contracts were terminated prematurely and unlawfully;










—


grant each applicant compensation in the amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including a daily subsistence allowance;










—


grant each applicant just satisfaction for moral damage and suffering;










—


order the payment of the legal fees and costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a premature and unlawful termination of their fixed-term contracts.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 points 1 and 2 of the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. (1)







(1)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6301/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.12070 – META / RELIANCE / JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: India, artificial intelligence, economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, research and development, social media








C_202505001EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5001


11.9.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.12070 – META / RELIANCE / JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5001)


1.   
On 3 September 2025, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Meta Platforms, Inc. (‘Meta’, United States),










—


Reliance Industries Limited (‘Reliance’, India),










—


JV Company (‘JV’, India).




Meta and Reliance will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Meta is a technology company which operates social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp,










—


Reliance has business activities across several sectors including energy, petrochemicals, natural gas, retail, media and entertainment, digital services and textiles.






3.   

The business activities of the JV will be the following: develop and commercialise technology for enterprise AI solutions in India.



4.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


5.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.12070 – META / RELIANCE / JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  
            OJ C 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5001/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-406/24, VertretungsNetz: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz – Austria) – RC v VertretungsNetz (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – National procedure for appointing a representative for a person with a mental disability – Difficulty in finding an appropriate representative – Doubts as to the judicial nature of the procedure before the body making the reference)
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: care of people with disabilities, general legal principle, guardianship, mentally disabled person








C_202505806EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5806


10.11.2025






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz – Austria) – RC v VertretungsNetz


(Case C-406/24,
                (1)
VertretungsNetz)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - National procedure for appointing a representative for a person with a mental disability - Difficulty in finding an appropriate representative - Doubts as to the judicial nature of the procedure before the body making the reference)
(C/2025/5806)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Linz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RC

Other party: VertretungsNetz

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (District Court, Linz, Austria), made by decision of 3 June 2024, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Date lodged: 11.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5806/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-602/25, Ithaque Sécurité: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 September 2025 – Ithaque Sécurité SAS v État belge
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, establishment, freedom to provide services, security services








C_202506497EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6497


15.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 September 2025 – Ithaque Sécurité SAS v État belge


(Case C-602/25, Ithaque Sécurité)

(C/2025/6497)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ithaque Sécurité SAS

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Is the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it requires a State to allow as a rule, within its territory, the activities of security firms established in another Member State, subject to the sole proviso that it may carry out certain checks?


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6497/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)