do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.118542
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy








C_202505418EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5418


9.10.2025






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.118542
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5418)








Date of adoption of the decision


18.9.2025




Aid number


SA.118542




Member State


Germany




Region


 




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Gesetz zur Änderung des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes zur Flexibilisierung vonBiogasanlagen und Sicherung der Anschlussförderung („Biogaspaket 2025“) [BMWE, IIIA1]SA.118542 – 2025 Amendments to the EEG 2023




Legal basis


EEG 2023 hier: Gesetz zur Änderung des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes zur Flexibilisierung von Biogasanlagen und Sicherung der Anschlussförderung vom 21. Februar 2025; Verkündung im Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 2025 Teil I Nr. 52, S. 1 ff.




Type of measure


Scheme


 




Objective


Renewable energy




Form of aid


Other




Budget


Overall budget: 7 900 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


Until 31.12.2026




Economic sectors


Production of electricity from renewable sources




Name and address of the granting authority







Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie




Scharnhorststraße 34-37, 10115 Berlin, Deutschland








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5418/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-368/24: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 – Commission v Greece (Implementation of the judgment on the Zakynthos landfill) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance – Article 260(2) TFEU – Environment – Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC – Waste – Landfill on the island of Zakynthos (Greece) – Obligation to close that landfill, which has not been granted the required permit – Pecuniary penalties – Periodic penalty payments – Lump sum)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ionian Islands, degradation of the environment, environmental protection, sanction (EU), unauthorised dumping, waste disposal








C_202506288EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6288


1.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 – Commission v Greece (Implementation of the judgment on the Zakynthos landfill)


(Case C-368/24)
                (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Environment - Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Waste - Landfill on the island of Zakynthos (Greece) - Obligation to close that landfill, which has not been granted the required permit - Pecuniary penalties - Periodic penalty payments - Lump sum)
(C/2025/6288)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Adamopoulos and M. Escobar Gómez, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: C. Kokkosi, acting as Agent)

Operative part

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Commission v Greece (C-600/12, EU:C:2014:2086), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 12 500 per day from the date of the present judgment to the date of compliance with the judgment of 17 July 2014, Commission v Greece (C-600/12, EU:C:2014:2086);










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 500 000;










4.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4578.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6288/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-663/25: Action brought on 9 October 2025 – European Commission v Republic of Austria
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_202506161EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6161


24.11.2025






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


(Case C-663/25)

(C/2025/6161)
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: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Republic of Austria 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 Republic of Austria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission claims that the Republic of Austria violated the exclusive external competence of the European Union under Article 3(2) TFEU.
In 2021, as a member of the International Danube Commission, the Republic of Austria 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 this decision.
Furthermore, the Republic of Austria’s consent was given contrary to the express request of the European Commission’s services. In doing so, the Republic of Austria 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/2025/6161/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.105337
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Saarland, State aid, control of State aid, processing industry








C_202505404EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5404


9.10.2025






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.105337
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/5404)








Date of adoption of the decision


19.12.2023




Aid number


SA.105337




Member State


Germany




Region


SAARLAND




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Aid to AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke, Saarstahl AG and ROGESA Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH for project Power4Steel – Phase 1 in Völklingen and Dillingen




Legal basis


Federal Budget Code (Bundeshaushaltsordnung)




Type of measure


Ad Hoc Case


 




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: 2 600 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


19.12.2023 - 31.12.2027




Economic sectors


MANUFACTURING




Name and address of the granting authority







The German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action




11019 Berlin








Other information


 




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5404/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-692/25: Action brought on 9 October 2025 – HI v Parliament
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, maladministration, rights of the defence, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202506192EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6192


24.11.2025






Action brought on 9 October 2025 – HI v Parliament


(Case T-692/25)

(C/2025/6192)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HI (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s staff report for the year 2023 and the decision to award the applicant zero merit point for the 2023 appraisal exercise;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 1 July 2025 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against her 2023 staff report and the decision to award zero merit point;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of procedural rules:






—


breach of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules governing the application of the General Implementing Provisions applicable to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the European Parliament on 21 October 2014 (GIP 43) – breach of the right to be heard;










—


breach of Article 5(9) of the GIP 43 – breach of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and the principle of good administration - breach of Articles 31(1) and 41(1) of the Charter.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6192/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-315/24, Nestlé Sverige (Labelling of food for special medical purposes): Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen – Sweden) – Nestlé Sverige AB v Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Food safety – Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – Provision of food information to consumers – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 – Food for special medical purposes – Specific information requirements – Mandatory nutrition declaration – Article 5(2)(g) – Additional mandatory particulars – Article 6(2) – Prohibition of the repetition on the labelling of information contained in the mandatory nutrition declaration)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, food safety, functional food, labelling, product designation








C_202506287EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6287


1.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen – Sweden) – Nestlé Sverige AB v Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun


(Case C-315/24,
                (1)
Nestlé Sverige (Labelling of food for special medical purposes))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 - Food for special medical purposes - Specific information requirements - Mandatory nutrition declaration - Article 5(2)(g) - Additional mandatory particulars - Article 6(2) - Prohibition of the repetition on the labelling of information contained in the mandatory nutrition declaration)
(C/2025/6287)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nestlé Sverige AB

Defendant: Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2)(g) and Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 of 25 September 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the specific compositional and information requirements for food for special medical purposes
must be interpreted as meaning that the indication of the energy value and the amount of various nutrients, expressed per portion or per consumption unit, on the front of the packaging of food for special medical purposes, whereas the mandatory nutrition declaration on the back of that packaging contains a statement of those same elements per 100 g or per 100 ml, does not constitute a ‘description of the properties and/or characteristics’ of a product, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(g) of that delegated regulation, but is a repetition of the information in that mandatory nutrition declaration, which is prohibited by Article 6(2) of that delegated regulation.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4083.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6287/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-662/25: Action brought on 9 October 2025 – European Commission v Hungary
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_202506160EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6160


24.11.2025






Action brought on 9 October 2025 – European Commission v Hungary


(Case C-662/25)

(C/2025/6160)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


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

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) TFEU and under Article 4(3) TEU, by failing to request removal of Point 7b from the draft agenda for the 96th plenary session of the Danube Commission, by voting in favour of maintaining Point 7b on the agenda and by voting in favour of adopting Danube Commission Decision CD/SES 96/10, in the absence of a position taken by the European Union on those issues;










—


order Hungary to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its action, the Commission claims a failure to respect the European Union’s exclusive external competence under Article 3(2) TFEU in the field governed by Directive (EU) 2017/2397 (1) on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation. Hungary, in its capacity as a member of the Danube Commission (an international organisation that regulates the interests of the riparian States of the Danube), participated in the adoption of a decision in which the Member States of the Danube Commission were recommended to recognise the crew documents required for inland navigation issued by a number of third countries. Hungary did so contrary to the express request of the [European] Commission and in the absence of a position taken by the European Union in that regard. In that way, it also breached the principle of sincere cooperation established 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/2025/6160/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-667/25, Natural Beauty Levin: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Natural Beauty Levin SRL v Asociația Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (CREDIDAM)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual industry, broadcasting, business model, copyright, establishment, hairdressing and beauty care








C_202600285EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/285


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 9 October 2025 – Natural Beauty Levin SRL v Asociația Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (CREDIDAM)


(Case C-667/25, Natural Beauty Levin)

(C/2026/285)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: Natural Beauty Levin SRL

Applicant and respondent: Asociația Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (CREDIDAM)

Questions referred







1.


Should the concept of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 (1) be interpreted as including the situation of the broadcasting of phonograms within a salon, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the context of the operation of that business?










2.


When applying an individual approach to the concept of ‘communication to the public’, should circumstances such as the size of the establishment, the number of barber chairs and/or customer waiting stations, the existence of a relaxation area and/or a socialising area for customers, and the business model be considered relevant?






(1)  Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/285/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-798/23, Abbottly: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court – Ireland) – in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of SH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 4a(1) – Surrender procedure between Member States – European arrest warrant – Conditions for execution – Grounds for optional non-execution – Mandatory execution – Exceptions – Concept of trial resulting in the decision – Additional sentence of police supervision – Breach of the conditions imposed in connection with that supervision – Decision converting police supervision into a custodial sentence – Sentence handed down in absentia)
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, alternative sentence, carrying out of sentence, imprisonment








C_202506283EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6283


1.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court – Ireland) – in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of SH


(Case C-798/23,
                (1)
Abbottly
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedure between Member States - European arrest warrant - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Mandatory execution - Exceptions - Concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ - Additional sentence of police supervision - Breach of the conditions imposed in connection with that supervision - Decision converting police supervision into a custodial sentence - Sentence handed down 
in absentia
)
(C/2025/6283)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Party to the main proceedings

SH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of that provision, covers proceedings at the end of which a national court may order, on account of breach of the conditions attached to a sentence of police supervision previously imposed on the person concerned in addition to a custodial sentence, the conversion of the unserved term of that additional sentence into a custodial sentence, whereby two days of police supervision are to count as one day of deprivation of liberty.


(1)  OJ C, C/2024/1845.

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6283/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)