do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-664/25: Action brought on 9 October 2025 – European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Danube region, agreement (EU), crew, external competence (EU), infringement of EU law, inland waterway shipping, international meeting, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, third country








C_202506162EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6162


24.11.2025






Action brought on 9 October 2025 – European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany


(Case C-664/25)

(C/2025/6162)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, M. Noll-Ehlers and B. Sasinowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU by not requesting the deletion of item 7(b) from the draft agenda of the 96th plenary session of the Danube Commission, voted in favour of retaining item 7(b) on the agenda and voted in favour of adopting Decision DK/TAG 96/10 of the Danube Commission without a Council decision having been taken to determine the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union and to authorise the EU Member States concerned to act jointly in the interests of the Union;










—


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany violated the exclusive external competence of the European Union under Article 3(2) TFEU.
In 2021, as a member of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, the Federal Republic of Germany voted in favour of adopting a resolution recommending the recognition of documents relating to certain professional qualifications in inland waterway transport, even though Directive (EU) 2017/2397 (1) lays down rules on the validity and recognition of ship personnel certificates in the Union. The approval was given without the Union having taken a position on that decision.
Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany’s consent was given contrary to the express request of the European Commission’s services. In doing so, the Federal Republic of Germany also violated the principle of loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.


(1)  Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing Council Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC (OJ 2017 L 345, p. 53).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6162/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-80/24, Zwrotybankowe.pl: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie – Poland) – Zwrotybankowe.pl sp. z o.o. v Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 22(2) – Imperative nature of that directive – Assignment to a third party by a consumer of his or her claim against a bank – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Examination by a national court of its own motion of the unfairness of the terms in a claim assignment agreement which is not subject to an ongoing dispute before that court)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, right of action, unfair terms of contract








C_202506284EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6284


1.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie – Poland) – Zwrotybankowe.pl sp. z o.o. v Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A.


(Case C-80/24,
                (1)
Zwrotybankowe.pl)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 22(2) - Imperative nature of that directive - Assignment to a third party by a consumer of his or her claim against a bank - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 6(1) - Article 7(1) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Examination by a national court of its own motion of the unfairness of the terms in a claim assignment agreement which is not subject to an ongoing dispute before that court)
(C/2025/6284)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy – Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zwrotybankowe.pl sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A.

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that allows a consumer to assign a claim arising from the infringement of a right conferred on him or her by the national legislation implementing the directive to a third party which is not a consumer.










2)


Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to examine of its own motion the unfairness of a term in a claim assignment agreement concluded by a consumer where the dispute before that national court, between the assignee company and a seller or supplier, does not concern that assignment agreement, but the consumer’s claim against that seller or supplier.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/3056.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6284/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Communication pursuant to Article 40(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/128 of 21 December 2021 concerning the composition of the Conciliation Body, established for the purpose of the clearance of accounts as regards the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, appointment of members, closing of accounts








C_202505524EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5524


9.10.2025






Communication pursuant to Article 40(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/128 of 21 December 2021 concerning the composition of the Conciliation Body, established for the purpose of the clearance of accounts as regards the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(C/2025/5524)

The composition of the Conciliation Body is as follows:







Chairperson:


Mr Patrick EVANS








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2023 – 31.7.2026








Members:


Mr José ALVAREZ RAMOS








—


reappointed for the period 1.8.2025 – 31.7.2026








 


Mr Hans-Christoph EIDEN








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2023 – 31.7.2026








 


Mr Aksel NIELSEN








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2024 – 31.7.2027








 


Mr Ahti BLEIVE








—


appointed for the period 1.8.2025 – 31.7.2028.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5524/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bangladesh, agreement (EU), air transport, bilateral agreement








L_202502063EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/2063


9.10.2025






Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services (1), signed in Brussels on 7 June 2024, entered into force on 30 June 2025, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 30 June 2025.


(1)  
            OJ L, 2024/1699, 26.6.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2024/1699/oj.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/info/2025/2063/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-666/25, Roma Capitale: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Roma Capitale
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, carriage of passengers, negotiated contract, public procurement, services contract, services of general interest








C_202506609EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6609


22.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Roma Capitale


(Case C-666/25, Roma Capitale)

(C/2025/6609)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Roma Capitale

Question referred

Does [EU] law, in particular Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1370/2007, (1) with regard to the direct award of a contract for local public passenger transport services to an internal operator, in so far as it provides that such an award is possible ‘unless prohibited by national law’, preclude national legislation, of the kind provided for in Article 17(2) [of Decreto legislativo n. 201 – Riordino della disciplina dei servizi pubblici locali di rilevanza economica (Legislative Decree No 201 reorganising the regulation of local public services of economic importance) of 23 December 2022 (Legislative Decree No 201/2022)], which, while not prohibiting having recourse to in-house provision altogether, makes the possibility of such recourse subject to limitations and, in particular, permits the authorities to use that award model only where there is a well-grounded statement of reasons setting out in detail the reasons for the lack of recourse to the market as well as the benefits for society at large of the form of management chosen in relation to a whole range of indicators (investments, quality of service, costs of services for users, impact on public finances, objectives of universality, social solidarity, environmental protection and accessibility of services, including the results obtained from any in-house management in the past) and not solely on the basis of an assessment of economic and administrative convenience?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6609/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 8 October 2025
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202505265EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5265


9.10.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            8 October 2025
         
(C/2025/5265)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1627 




JPY


Japanese yen


177,53 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4667 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86710 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9635 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9305 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,6125 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,369 




HUF


Hungarian forint


392,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2508 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0958 




TRY


Turkish lira


48,5016 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7689 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6210 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0484 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0130 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5062 




KRW


South Korean won


1 656,07 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9830 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2779 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 295,24 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9040 




PHP


Philippine peso


67,458 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,824 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2288 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3818 




INR


Indian rupee


103,1975 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5265/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-660/25, Bentrac Fuvar: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Egri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Bentrac Fuvar Kft. v Basalt Stone s.r.o.
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_202506608EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6608


22.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Egri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Bentrac Fuvar Kft. v Basalt Stone s.r.o.


(Case C-660/25, Bentrac Fuvar)

(C/2025/6608)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Egri Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bentrac Fuvar Kft.

Defendant: Basalt Stone s.r.o.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I bis Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance of each of the reciprocal obligations establishes jurisdiction separately if the action brought by the applicant seeks only performance of the obligation owed to the applicant?










2.


If the reciprocal obligations under the contract between the parties fall to be examined separately, must Article 7(1), of the Brussels I bis Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the place of satisfaction of the pecuniary consideration claimed in the application establishes jurisdiction, irrespective of the specific characteristics of the contract?






(1)  
            OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6608/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-597/24: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2025 – Khudaynatov v Council
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy








C_202506196EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6196


24.11.2025






Order of the General Court of 9 October 2025 – Khudaynatov v Council


(Case T-597/24)
                (1)

(C/2025/6196)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C, C/2025/577, 3.2.2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6196/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-540/24, Cabris Investments: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien – Austria) – Cabris Investments Ltd v Revetas Capital Advisors LLP (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Scope – Article 25 – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Parties to a contract established in the same third State – Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract – International element – Consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, United Kingdom, courts and tribunals, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, nationality of legal persons, withdrawal from the EU








C_202506290EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6290


1.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien – Austria) – Cabris Investments Ltd v Revetas Capital Advisors LLP


(Case C-540/24,
                (1)
Cabris Investments)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Article 25 - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Parties to a contract established in the same third State - Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract - International element - Consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union)
(C/2025/6290)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cabris Investments Ltd

Defendant: Revetas Capital Advisors LLP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers a situation in which two parties to a contract domiciled in the United Kingdom agree, by an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded during the transition period provided for by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, on the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract, even where that court was seised of a dispute between those parties after the end of that period.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/6635.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6290/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)