do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.12199 – WH GROUP / ENTITIES OF THE WOLF GROUP) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, livestock farming, meat processing industry, merger control, slaughter of animals, swine








C_202506529EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6529


4.12.2025






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.12199 – WH GROUP / ENTITIES OF THE WOLF GROUP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/6529)


1.   
On 26 November 2025, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Morliny Foods Holding Limited (UK) indirectly wholly-owned by WH Group Limited (‘WH Group’, China),










—


Reinhard Wolf GmbH & Co.KG, and Wolf Nürnberg Immobilien GmbH & Co. KG (the ‘Target’, Germany).




WH Group will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the Target.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


WH Group is a globally operating company engaged in livestock breeding and livestock slaughtering of pigs and poultry animals as well as the processing and distribution of fresh pork and poultry meat and packaged processed pork and poultry meat products,










—


The Target is mainly active in manufacturing and processing of meat products in Europe, mostly in Germany.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.12199 – WH GROUP / ENTITIES OF THE WOLF GROUP
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  
            OJ C 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6529/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 3 December 2025
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202506383EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6383


4.12.2025






Euro exchange rates (1)


            3 December 2025
         
(C/2025/6383)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1668 




JPY


Japanese yen


181,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4689 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87660 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,9550 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9336 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7580 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,125 




HUF


Hungarian forint


381,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2318 




RON


Romanian leu


5,0917 




TRY


Turkish lira


49,5248 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7700 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,6270 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0826 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,0292 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5101 




KRW


South Korean won


1 708,78 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9304 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2421 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


19 395,72 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8107 




PHP


Philippine peso


68,800 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,209 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2057 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2967 




INR


Indian rupee


105,2075 






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6383/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Council Decision of 4 December 2025 replacing a member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Malta
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Malta, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_202506583EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6583


10.12.2025







            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 4 December 2025
         
replacing a member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Malta
(C/2025/6583)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/126 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By Decision of 28 March 2023 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2027.












(2)


A seat as member in the government representatives category has fallen vacant as a result of the resignation of Mr Melhino MERCIECA.












(3)


The Government of Malta has designated a candidate for the vacant seat,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Silvio FARRUGIA is appointed member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in place of Mr Melhino MERCIECA for the remainder of the current term of office, ending on 31 March 2027.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 4 December 2025.


For the Council


The President

T. DANIELSEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 58.

(2)  Council Decision of 28 March 2023 appointing members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (OJ C 116, 31.3.2023, p. 19).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6583/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as of 1 September 2025 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelinesand Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004)
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_202506536EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6536


4.12.2025






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as of 1 September 2025
         


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelinesand Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004
               
                (1)
)


(C/2025/6536)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.9.2025 –


7,84 


0,88 


4,71 






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6536/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-782/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2025 in Case T-771/20 RENV, KS and KD v Council and Others
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, human rights, powers of the institutions (EU), right of action, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202600635EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/635


9.2.2026






Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by KS and KD against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2025 in Case T-771/20 RENV, KS and KD v Council and Others


(Case C-782/25 P)

(C/2026/635)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: KS and KD (represented by: P. Koutrakos, dikigoros, F. Randolph KC and J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Czech Republic, French Republic, Kingdom of Belgium, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Republic of Austria, Romania, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the order under appeal;










—


order the disclosure of the current and previous versions of the Operation Plan of the Eulex Kosovo mission (OPLAN);










—


order to pay the appellants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court’s dismissal of KS and KD’s claim is vitiated by the following errors of law.
First, the General Court erred in law by finding that KS and KD had withdrawn their request that Eulex Kosovo be added as a defendant in the proceedings.
Second, the General Court erred in law by finding that the mere ability to bring a claim before the Courts of the EU remedied breaches of the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.
Third, the finding that the respondents’ failure to implement the review panels’ findings did not fall outside the remit of EULEX Kosovo and that, therefore, that failure could not be attributed to the respondents is erroneous because it failed to consider the April 29, 2016 letter from the EULEX Kosovo Head of Mission.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law by finding that claims that the respondents’ continuing failure to endow the Human Rights Review Panel (‘HRRP’) with sufficient powers and resources manifestly lacked foundation in law.
Finally, the General Court erred in law by finding that the claims contesting the statements from the Council and the EEAS that the HRRP was not intended to become a judicial body were both manifestly inadmissible and lacking foundation in law.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/635/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-787/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-258/23, Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600454EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/454


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-258/23, Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission


(Case C-787/25 P)

(C/2026/454)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, A. Pothof, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Zakłady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A., European Commission and Biogaran

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under the appeal;










—


reject the application at first instance; and










—


order Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant rely on three grounds of appeal.
First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by holding that this provision was violated by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023.
Second ground of appeal: the General Court made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in order to conclude on that basis that the judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA (T-611/18) did not have any bearing on the lack of the grant of an authorisation for a new therapeutic indication for Tecfidera within the first eight years of the 10-year period of marketing protection for Tecfidera.
Third ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by holding that the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 violated that provision.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/454/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-785/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-256/23, Mylan Ireland v Commission
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600452EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/452


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-256/23, Mylan Ireland v Commission


(Case C-785/25 P)

(C/2026/452)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, A. Pothof, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mylan Ireland Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under the appeal;










—


reject the application at first instance; and










—


order Mylan Ireland Ltd to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant rely on three grounds of appeal.
First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by holding that this provision was violated by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023.
Second ground of appeal: the General Court made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in order to conclude on that basis that the judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA (T-611/18) did not have any bearing on the lack of the grant of an authorisation for a new therapeutic indication for Tecfidera within the first eight years of the 10-year period of marketing protection for Tecfidera.
Third ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by holding that the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 violated that provision.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/452/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-790/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-393/23, Teva v Commission
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600457EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/457


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-393/23, Teva v Commission


(Case C-790/25 P)

(C/2026/457)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, A. Pothof, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Teva GmbH, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement under appeal;










—


reject the application at first instance; and










—


order Teva GmbH to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant rely on three grounds of appeal.
First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) by holding that this provision was violated by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023.
Second ground of appeal: the General Court made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in order to conclude on that basis that the judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA (T-611/18) did not have any bearing on the lack of the grant of an authorisation for a new therapeutic indication for Tecfidera within the first eight years of the 10-year period of marketing protection for Tecfidera.
Third ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by holding that the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 violated that provision.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/457/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-792/25 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-309/23, Aliud Pharma GmbH v European Commission
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600459EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/459


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 4 December 2025 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-309/23, Aliud Pharma GmbH v European Commission



(Case C-792/25 P)

(C/2026/459)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek and A. Pothof, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aliud Pharma GmbH, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss the action for annulment brought at first instance or refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order Aliud Pharma GmbH to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three grounds of appeal, alleging:
First, that the General Court misinterpreted Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) when it found that that provision had been infringed by Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023.
Second, that the General Court clearly misinterpreted the facts and, on the basis of that erroneous assessment, concluded that the judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2021 in Case T-611/18 (2) had no bearing on the refusal to authorise a new indication for Tecfidera within the first eight years of the ten-year marketing protection for Tecfidera.
Third, that the General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU when it found that Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 infringed that provision.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

(2)  EU:T:2021:241


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/459/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)