do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-284/24, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and Others: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court – Ireland) – LD v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2004/80/EC – Article 12(2) – Compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes – Fair and appropriate compensation – National legislation excluding compensation for pain and suffering endured)
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, damages, eye disease, help for victims, indemnification, physical aggression, right to an effective remedy, violence








C_202506142EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6142


24.11.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court – Ireland) – LD v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General


(Case C-284/24,
                (1)
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - Compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes - Fair and appropriate compensation - National legislation excluding compensation for pain and suffering endured)
(C/2025/6142)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Plaintiff: LD

Defendants: Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims
must be interpreted as precluding a national scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes which, as a matter of principle, excludes, as regards non-material harm, any compensation for pain and suffering endured by such victims. Notwithstanding the need to ensure the financial viability of national compensation schemes, such that the Member States are not necessarily obliged to provide complete reparation of the material and non-material loss suffered by those victims, fair and appropriate compensation, within the meaning of that provision, requires, when determining such compensation, that account be taken of the seriousness of the consequences, for the victims, of the crimes committed and of the reparation that such victims may obtain on the basis of the tortious liability of the offender.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4082.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6142/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-649/25: Action brought on 2 October 2025 – European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, infringement of EU law, lawyer, legal aid, national implementing measure, rights of the defence








C_202505816EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5816


10.11.2025






Action brought on 2 October 2025 – European Commission v Slovak Republic


(Case C-649/25)

(C/2025/5816)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R Lindenthal, M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to correctly implement Article 2(1), read in conjunction with Article 3, of Directive 2013/48/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application concerns the incorrect transposition by the Slovak Republic of Article 2(1) (Scope) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/48/EU, in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive.
Specifically, the Commission considers that the conditions that the Trestný poriadok (Slovak Code of Criminal Procedure) provides for in respect of the application of the right of a suspect to access to a lawyer, together and in interaction with each other, including the high degree of legal uncertainty, constitute an incorrect transposition of Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/48, read in conjunction with Article 3 of that directive.


(1)  
            OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5816/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 2,15 % on 1 October 2025 – Euro exchange rates
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_202505258EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5258


2.10.2025






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

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


            1 October 2025
         
(C/2025/5258)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1724 




JPY


Japanese yen


172,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4659 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87040 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0355 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9365 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6580 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,275 




HUF


Hungarian forint


388,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2583 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0821 




TRY


Turkish lira


48,7626 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7741 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6337 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1235 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0184 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5114 




KRW


South Korean won


1 647,52 




ZAR


South African rand


20,1455 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3470 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 499,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9329 




PHP


Philippine peso


68,146 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,968 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2264 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4137 




INR


Indian rupee


104,0220 






(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/2025/5258/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-369/24, MET Magyarország and Global NRG ROM: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék – Hungary) – MET Magyarország Energiakereskedő Zrt., Global NRG ROM SRL v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market in natural gas – Regulation (EU) 2017/460 – Natural gas transmission system – Reference price methodology – Article 35(1) – Exemption for contracts concluded before 6 April 2017 which foresee no change in the levels of transmission tariffs except for indexation – Concept of indexation)
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, consumer price, derogation from EU law, energy grid, gas pipeline, gas supply, price index, price of energy, principle of legal certainty








C_202506143EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6143


24.11.2025






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék – Hungary) – MET Magyarország Energiakereskedő Zrt., Global NRG ROM SRL v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal


(Case C-369/24,
                (1)
MET Magyarország and Global NRG ROM)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Regulation (EU) 2017/460 - Natural gas transmission system - Reference price methodology - Article 35(1) - Exemption for contracts concluded before 6 April 2017 which foresee no change in the levels of transmission tariffs except for indexation - Concept of ‘indexation’)
(C/2025/6143)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: MET Magyarország Energiakereskedő Zrt., Global NRG ROM SRL

Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

Intervener: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 35(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations,
must be interpreted as meaning that the exception laid down therein applies only to long-term gas capacity booking contracts concluded before 6 April 2017 in which no change in the levels of transmission tariffs, determined on the basis of the capacity and/or quantity of gas transported is foreseen other than on the basis of indexation, in particular on the basis of the consumer price index. That exception shall not apply to contracts where changes in tariff levels result from other factors, including where the contracting parties so agree or where an official tariff applies.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4579.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6143/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1480 of 18 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan (OJ L, 2025/1480, 18.7.2025)
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Sudan, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








L_202590764EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90764


2.10.2025






Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1480 of 18 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2025/1480, 18 July 2025
)







1.


On page 4, in the Annex, section (2), in entry number 7 for ‘Alkhaleej Bank Co Ltd’, in the column headed ‘Identifying information’:











for:





                           ‘Type of entity: Financial institution
Registration number: SUDAN-EO14098
Principal place of business: Khartoum, Sudan’,












read:





                           ‘Type of entity: Financial institution
SWIFT/BIC code: KHJBSDKH and 5040942458
Principal place of business: Khartoum, Sudan’.











2.


On page 5, in the Annex, section (2), in entry number 8 for ‘Red Rock Mining Company’, in the column headed ‘Identifying information’:











for:





                           ‘Date of registration: 1960s
Registration number: Group ID: 16463
Principal place of business: United Arab Emirates’,












read:





                           ‘Date of registration: 1960s
Principal place of business: United Arab Emirates’.







ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1480/corrigendum/2025-10-02/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-391/24, Nolgers: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel – Belgium) – Criminal proceedings against LZ (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions – Article 1 – Scope – Supervised release with an obligation to undergo inpatient medical treatment in a closed institution – Measure involving deprivation of liberty – Obligation of recognition and enforcement)
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU national, Netherlands, conditional discharge, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, jurisdiction, medical institution, therapeutics








C_202506144EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6144


24.11.2025






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel – Belgium) – Criminal proceedings against LZ


(Case C-391/24,
                (1)
Nolgers
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA - Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions - Article 1 - Scope - Supervised release with an obligation to undergo inpatient medical treatment in a closed institution - Measure involving deprivation of liberty - Obligation of recognition and enforcement)
(C/2025/6144)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Party in the main criminal proceedings

LZ

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions
must be interpreted as meaning that the recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering the supervised release of a person serving a custodial sentence, coupled with a special condition requiring that person to undergo ‘inpatient treatment’ for his or her psychological problems in a closed institution, does not fall within the scope of that framework decision, with the result that the competent authority of the executing State cannot be required to recognise and enforce such a judgment on the basis of that framework decision.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/5599.

(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/2025/6144/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)