do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12083 – SANMINA / ZT)
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: after-sales service, cloud computing, computer centre, economic concentration, electronics, logistics, maintenance, merger control, network server, provision of services








C_202505406EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5406


6.10.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12083 – SANMINA / ZT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5406)

On 30 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 32025M12083. 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/2025/5406/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-676/25: Action brought on 30 September 2025 – Yandex Bank v Council
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, bank, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_202506306EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6306


1.12.2025






Action brought on 30 September 2025 – Yandex Bank v Council


(Case T-676/25)

(C/2025/6306)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yandex Bank JSC (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis and C. Cauvin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1495 (1), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 (2), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence.





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 that the Council committed an error of assessment in concluding that the applicant is a ‘large and important regional bank, consequently facilitating regional and federal finances and business’ and is ‘relevant for the Russian financial and banking system’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to discharge its burden of proof in breach of its obligation to base its decision to impose restrictive measures on a sufficiently solid factual basis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s fundamental rights by violating the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business and the rights of the defence, guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of proportionality by imposing restrictive measures that are neither necessary nor appropriate to achieve the stated objectives.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the EU-Russia Partnership Agreement by imposing a blanket transaction ban on the applicant.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1495 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1495).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1494).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6306/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.12171 – L-GAM / HAYFIN / VINVENTIONS) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, cork, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, metal product, packaging product








C_202505295EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5295


30.9.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.12171 – L-GAM / HAYFIN / VINVENTIONS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5295)


1.   
On 22 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:






—


L-GAM II SCSp (‘L-GAM’, Luxembourg),










—


Hayfin Capital Management LLP (‘Hayfin’, United Kingdom).




L-GAM and Hayfin will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Vinventions Holding S.à r.l. (‘Vinventions’, Luxembourg, currently controlled by L-GAM).
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.


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






—


L-GAM is a European mid-market private-equity firm,










—


Hayfin Capital Management LLP is an alternative asset management firm operating in Europe, Asia and the United States.






3.   

Vinventions is a supplier of synthetic and aluminium closures for wine bottles, operating across multiple jurisdictions including the EU, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa and China.



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 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.12171 – L-GAM / HAYFIN / VINVENTIONS
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/2025/5295/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-542/24, Maski: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku – Poland) – A. B. v Skarb Państwa – Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe Nadleśnictwo C. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Rule of law – Independence of the judiciary – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law – Principle of judicial independence – Examination of the case on appeal by a single-Judge formation – Option for the president of the court to refer the case to a three-Judge formation – Question of a hypothetical nature – Impossibility, for the referring court to take into account, under its domestic law, any answer given by the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, appeal, independence of the judiciary, judge, judicial review, right to an effective remedy, rule of law








C_202600074EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/74


5.1.2026






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku – Poland) – A. B. v Skarb Państwa – Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe Nadleśnictwo C.


(Case C-542/24,
                (1)
Maski
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Principle of judicial independence - Examination of the case on appeal by a single-Judge formation - Option for the president of the court to refer the case to a three-Judge formation - Question of a hypothetical nature - Impossibility, for the referring court to take into account, under its domestic law, any answer given by the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility)
(C/2026/74)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A. B.

Respondent: Skarb Państwa – Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe Nadleśnictwo C.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Regional Court, Słupsk, Poland), sitting as a single Judge, as it was initially designated, made by decision of 24 July 2024, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/6910.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/74/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-673/25: Action brought on 30 September 2025 – Wazdan Innovations v EUIPO – Push Gaming Product (CLUSTER COLLECTOR)
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_202505983EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5983


17.11.2025






Action brought on 30 September 2025 – Wazdan Innovations v EUIPO – Push Gaming Product (CLUSTER COLLECTOR)


(Case T-673/25)

(C/2025/5983)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wazdan Innovations ltd. (Ta’ Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: D. Hasik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Push Gaming Product ltd. (Ta’ Xbiex)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CLUSTER COLLECTOR – Application for registration No 18 897 899
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2025 in Case R 2146/2024-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to bear their own costs and compensate the actual costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations;










—


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






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5983/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12109 – BAIN CAPITAL / KOHLBERG / PCI PHARMA GROUP)
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United States, bio-industry, clinical trial, company with share capital, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, provision of services








C_202505869EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5869


30.10.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12109 – BAIN CAPITAL / KOHLBERG / PCI PHARMA GROUP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5869)

On 30 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 32025M12109. 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/2025/5869/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)