do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-207/24: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – Terranova Directorship and Wamos Air v EUIPO – Vamos Motor Company (vamos)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hire purchase, information system, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle rental








C_202505988EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5988


17.11.2025






Order of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – Terranova Directorship and Wamos Air v EUIPO – Vamos Motor Company (vamos)


(Case T-207/24)
                (1)

(C/2025/5988)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3483, 10.6.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5988/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-645/25, Université de Namur: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 October 2025 – Université de NamurASBL v Région wallonne
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal experimentation, competence of the institution, national competent authority, protection of animals, scientific research








C_202600155EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/155


12.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 October 2025 – Université de NamurASBL v Région wallonne


(Case C-645/25, Université de Namur)

(C/2026/155)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Université de Namur ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Other party to the proceedings: Global action in the interest of animals (GAIA) ASBL

Question referred

Must Articles 3, 7, 36 to 45 and 59 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (1) be interpreted as entailing that a body designated by a Member State as a ‘competent authority’ for the evaluation and authorisation of a project should be recognised as having its own imperium in order to take decisions which have binding effects vis-à-vis third parties?


(1)  
            OJ 2010 L 276, p. 33.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/155/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-751/24, Gebrüder Weiss: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien – Austria) – Gebrüder Weiss GmbH v Volkswagen AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Dispute in the main proceedings which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approval, engine, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle parts








C_202600273EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/273


26.1.2026






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien – Austria) – Gebrüder Weiss GmbH v Volkswagen AG


(Case C-751/24,
                (1)
Gebrüder Weiss)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dispute in the main proceedings which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(C/2026/273)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gebrüder Weiss GmbH

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the order

There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Court for Commercial Matters, Vienna, Austria), by decision of 27 September 2024.


(1)  OJ C, C/2025/1736.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/273/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-641/25, Łęko: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 1 October 2025 – Bank BPH S.A v AKS and BS
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, interest, principle of proportionality, unfair terms of contract








C_202600626EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/626


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 1 October 2025 – Bank BPH S.A v AKS and BS


(Case C-641/25, Łęko
                (1)
)

(C/2026/626)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bank BPH S.A

Defendants: AKS and BS

Questions referred







1.


In the context of a loan agreement concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier being annulled in its entirety on the ground that the agreement contained unfair terms without which it could not continue in existence, must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) and the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality be interpreted as precluding national legislation according to which the seller or supplier is entitled to demand statutory default interest from the consumer in addition to the reimbursement of the equivalent of the capital paid in respect of the performance of the loan agreement?










2.


If the above question is answered in the negative – do the provisions and principles of EU law indicated in point 1 preclude national legislation according to which the seller or supplier is entitled to demand default interest from the consumer also for the period before the date on which the final judgment annulling the loan agreement is given?






(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)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/626/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-384/20 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – OC v Commission (Non-contractual liability – OLAF investigation – Press release – Processing of personal data – Presumption of innocence – Principle of good administration – Duty to act diligently – Confidentiality of OLAF investigations – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Causal link – Damage)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, confidentiality, damages, data protection, maladministration, personal data, presumption of innocence, rule of law








C_202505952EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5952


17.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – OC v Commission


(Case T-384/20 RENV)
                (1)

(Non-contractual liability - OLAF investigation - Press release - Processing of personal data - Presumption of innocence - Principle of good administration - Duty to act diligently - Confidentiality of OLAF investigations - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Damage)
(C/2025/5952)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: OC (represented by: I. Ktenidis and P. Yatagantzidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Adamopoulos, J. Baquero Cruz, F. Blanc and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage she allegedly suffered following the publication, on 5 May 2020, of a press release from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (‘the press release at issue’) in that it unlawfully processed her personal data and conveyed false information about her.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders the European Commission to pay OC EUR 50 000;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5952/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-566/24: Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – Group Pack v EUIPO – Obi Group Sourcing (LUX 1991) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark LUX 1991 – Earlier EU figurative mark LUX TOOLS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aluminium, household article, packaged product, plastics, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, storage of food, thin sheet, trade-mark law








C_202505962EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5962


17.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – Group Pack v EUIPO – Obi Group Sourcing (LUX 1991)


(Case T-566/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LUX 1991 - Earlier EU figurative mark LUX TOOLS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2025/5962)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Group Pack sp. z o.o. (Żukowo, Poland) (represented by: K. Czub, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Obi Group Sourcing GmbH (Wermelskirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 August 2024 (Case R 494/2024-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Group Pack sp. z o.o., the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Obi Group Sourcing GmbH each to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2025/93, 6.1.2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5962/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12155 – CENTRICA / BRIDGEPOINT / GRAIN)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, electricity supply, energy grid, energy production, gas supply, investment company, merger control, natural gas, storage of hydrocarbons








C_202505493EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5493


8.10.2025






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12155 – CENTRICA / BRIDGEPOINT / GRAIN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5493)

On 1 October 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 32025M12155. 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/2025/5493/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-646/25, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 October 2025 – GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v Région wallonne
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal experimentation, competence of the institution, national competent authority, protection of animals, scientific research








C_202600156EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/156


12.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 October 2025 – GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v Région wallonne


(Case C-646/25, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)

(C/2026/156)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.

Defendant: Région wallonne

Other party to the proceedings: Global action in the interest of animals (GAIA) ASBL

Question referred

Must Articles 3, 7, 36 to 45 and 59 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (1) be interpreted as entailing that a body designated by a Member State as a ‘competent authority’ for the evaluation and authorisation of a project should be recognised as having its own imperium in order to take decisions which have binding effects vis-à-vis third parties?


(1)  
            OJ 2010 L 276, p. 33.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/156/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-154/24: Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – AF v Council (Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Appraisal report – 2022 appraisal exercise – Right to be heard – Manifest error of assessment – Liability)
Date: 2025-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_202505958EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5958


17.11.2025






Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2025 – AF v Council


(Case T-154/24)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Appraisal report - 2022 appraisal exercise - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Liability)
(C/2025/5958)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AF (represented by: A. Guillerme and F. Patuelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, seeks (i) the annulment of her 2022 assessment report and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage she claims to have suffered as a result of that report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AF to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/3081, 13.5.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5958/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)