do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-671/25, Konya: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 October 2025 – KC v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family reunification, foreign national, foreign student, residence permit








C_202600628EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/628


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 October 2025 – KC v Minister van Asiel en Migratie


(Case C-671/25, Konya
                (1)
)

(C/2026/628)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KC

Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(2)(e) of the Long-Term Residents Directive (2) be interpreted as meaning that residence on the basis of an ‘orientation year residence permit’ under Article 25 of the Students and Researchers Directive (3) cannot be regarded as residence solely on temporary grounds within the meaning of the first of those provisions?










2.


Must Article 4 of the Long-Term Residents Directive be interpreted as meaning that residence on the basis of an orientation year residence permit counts in full towards completion of the five-year period? Or is there reason to take only half of the residence period into account, as in the case of a residence permit for study or vocational training?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first and second questions whether the third-country national has in fact already been granted, initially, a subsequent right of residence under EU law on the basis of the Family Reunification Directive, (4) and then, under national law, a right of residence of indefinite duration that is not solely on temporary grounds?






(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 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(3)  Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing (OJ 2016 L 132, p. 21).

(4)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/628/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-482/23: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – Commission v Denmark (Cabotage operations) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Access to the international market for coach and bus services – Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 – Article 2(4) and (7) and Article 15(b) – Cabotage operations by coach and bus in the context of occasional services – National measures of application introducing a maximum period of seven consecutive days in one calendar month – Margin of discretion – Proportionality)
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bus, carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, international road transport, principle of proportionality, provision of services, road cabotage, transport licence








C_202506107EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6107


8.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – Commission v Denmark (Cabotage operations)


(Case C-482/23)
                (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Access to the international market for coach and bus services - Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 - Article 2(4) and (7) and Article 15(b) - Cabotage operations by coach and bus in the context of occasional services - National measures of application introducing a maximum period of seven consecutive days in one calendar month - Margin of discretion - Proportionality)
(C/2025/6107)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Messina and C. Vang, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by D. Elkan, J.F. Kronborg and C. Maertens, acting as Agents, and subsequently by D. Elkan and C. Maertens, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: M. Brathovde, K. Isaksen, M.-M. Joséphidès and I.O. Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Iceland (represented by: V.B. Eggertsdóttir, H. Jónsson, I. Óskarsdóttir and N.G. Sigurðardóttir, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Norway (represented by: T. Aalia and E. Eikeland, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 329, 18.9.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6107/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-713/25: Action brought on 16 October 2025 – Romgaz v Commission
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carbon neutrality, clean technology, drafting of EU law, equal treatment, gas industry, industrial pollution, polluter pays principle, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, right to property








C_202506636EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6636


22.12.2025






Action brought on 16 October 2025 – Romgaz v Commission


(Case T-713/25)

(C/2025/6636)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Societatea Națională de Gaze Naturale Romgaz SA (Mediaș, Romania) (represented by: A.-R. Pop, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision (EU) 2025/1479 of 22 May 2025 (the ‘Decision’) (1) and the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1477 of 21 May 2025 (‘Delegated Regulation’) (2) in whole or in part;










—


declare Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 on the Net-Zero Industry Act (‘NZIA’) (3) inapplicable in part;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs before this Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on ten pleas in law, which are in essence similar to those in case T-712/25, Black Sea Oil & Gas v Commission.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 of 22 May 2025 specifying the pro rata contributions to the Union CO2 injection capacity objective by 2030 from entities holding an authorisation as defined in Article 1, point 3, of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 2025/1479).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1477 of 21 May 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the rules on the identification of authorised oil and gas producers who are required to contribute to the objective of reaching the Union target for available CO2 injection capacity by 2030, on the calculation of their respective contributions, and on their reporting obligations (OJ L 2025/1477).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (OJ L 2024/1735).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6636/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-805/24 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – Timchenko and Timchenko v Council (Appeal – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Article 2 – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Article 9(2) – Obligation requiring persons subject to a fund-freezing measure to report funds and economic resources – Legal classification of such an obligation – Legal basis – Article 215(2) TFEU – Articles 24, 26 and 29 TEU – Implementation of the common foreign and security policy by the Member States)
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_202506116EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6116


8.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – Timchenko and Timchenko v Council


(Case C-805/24 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 - Article 2 - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Article 9(2) - Obligation requiring persons subject to a fund-freezing measure to report funds and economic resources - Legal classification of such an obligation - Legal basis - Article 215(2) TFEU - Articles 24, 26 and 29 TEU - Implementation of the common foreign and security policy by the Member States)
(C/2025/6116)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko, Elena Petrovna Timchenko (represented by: S. Bonifassi, T. Bontinck, E. Fedorova and A. Guillerme, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac, D. Laurent and J. Rurarz, acting as Agents), European Commission, (represented by: M. Carpus Carcea, C. Giolito, H. Krämer and L. Puccio, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Mrs Elena Petrovna Timchenko to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C, C/2025/253.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6116/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-721/25: Action brought on 16 October 2025 – Sabormex v EUIPO – (Tierra Brands España (TIERRA GARAT)
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202600116EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/116


5.1.2026






Action brought on 16 October 2025 – Sabormex v EUIPO – (Tierra Brands España (TIERRA GARAT)


(Case T-721/25)

(C/2026/116)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sabormex SAPI de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez and Y. Hernández Viñes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tierra Brands España, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TIERRA GARAT – Application No 18 906 602
         

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 August 2025 in Case R 293/2025-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


consequently, annul the decision on the opposition brought against the contested mark, ordering the possible peaceful coexistence of the opposing marks, and allow registration of the contested mark;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Error in the assessment of the proof of use submitted by the defendant before the Board of Appeal in finding the effective use of the earlier mark during the relevant period to be sufficiently proven and failure to take account of the arguments and facts set out by the appellant before the Board of Appeal;










—


Error in the overall assessment of the earlier mark and the contested mark, by dividing up and dismembering each mark, eliminating the additional elements of the contested mark and failing to take account of the obvious overall differences;










—


Error in the assessment of the degree of distinctiveness of the common element ‘TIERRA’ in relation to the services in Class 43.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/116/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation) (OJ L, 2023/2405, 31.10.2023)
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: air quality, air transport, aviation fuel, biofuel, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, supply, sustainable mobility








L_202590825EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/90825


16.10.2025






Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation)
(
Official Journal of the European Union L, 2023/2405, 31 October 2023
)

Page 20, in Article 9(3), fourth sentence







for:




‘Where the request concerns information relating to a reporting period that has not yet ended at the time that the request was made, the aircraft operator shall endeavour to submit its request at least 45 days before the end of that period.’
,










read:




‘Where the request concerns information relating to a period that has not yet ended at the time that the request was made, the aircraft operator shall endeavour to submit its request at least 45 days before the end of that period.’.







ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2405/corrigendum/2025-10-16/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)
Case C-576/24 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – TO v EUAA (Appeal – Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Termination of the contract – Breakdown in the relationship of trust – Psychological harassment)
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, data protection, harassment at work, indemnification, medical data, personal data, proof, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment








C_202506114EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6114


8.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2025 – TO v EUAA


(Case C-576/24 P)
                (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Psychological harassment)
(C/2025/6114)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: C. Allante and A. Stamatopoulou, agents, and by T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and S. Napolitano, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders TO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/7020.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6114/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-673/25, TPS CBD: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Paris (France) lodged on 16 October 2025 – Procureur de la République v SARL TPS CBD, PT, SP
Date: 2025-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food safety, free movement of goods, novel food, penalty, principle of legal certainty, single market








C_202600288EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/288


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Paris (France) lodged on 16 October 2025 – Procureur de la République v SARL TPS CBD, PT, SP


(Case C-673/25, TPS CBD)

(C/2026/288)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and prosecutor: Procureur de la République

Defendants: SARL TPS CBD, PT, SP

Questions referred







1.


Can the non-binding ‘Novel Food Catalogue’, produced by the European Commission for information purposes, constitute a sufficient legal basis for failure to comply with that catalogue to be regarded as unlawful conduct, punishable by a criminal penalty?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, must a national criminal court then examine whether a product which is not on the list of authorised ‘novel foods’ should or should not be regarded as a ‘novel food’ where the outcome of the criminal proceedings depends on that classification?










3.


Conversely, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a national criminal court bound by the European Commission’s assessment which results in the classification of a product as a ‘novel food’, or can that classification be contested before it, in particular to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?










4.


If, in the circumstances set out in questions 2 and 3, a national court is called upon to assess the classification as a ‘novel food’ of a product which is not contained in the ‘novel foods’ list, would it be justified in ruling in the light of evidence adduced before it or would it be required to refer a question concerning that classification to the Court of Justice?










5.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, would a criminal conviction based on the content of the ‘Novel Food Catalogue’, which concerns trade in goods acquired within the internal market, which do not qualify as narcotics, comply with the principles of legality and foreseeability of criminal offences and penalties, which derive from the Article 49(1), read in conjunction with Article 52(3), of the Charter?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/288/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)