do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-458/22: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Ryanair v Commission (TAP; restructuring aid) (State aid – Portuguese air transport market – Restructuring aid granted by Portugal to TAP SGPS and TAP Air Portugal – Commission decision authorising aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU – Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, aid for restructuring, airline, company in difficulties, control of State aid, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality








C_202600469EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/469


2.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Ryanair v Commission (TAP; restructuring aid)


(Case T-458/22)
                (1)

(State aid - Portuguese air transport market - Restructuring aid granted by Portugal to TAP SGPS and TAP Air Portugal - Commission decision authorising aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)
(C/2026/469)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, S. Rating, L. Geiger and C. Cozzani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Carpi Badía, I. Barcew and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: A. Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, M. Ramos and A. Rodrigues, acting as Agents, and by N. Mimoso Ruiz and G. Oliveira e Costa, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/763 of 21 December 2021 on the State aid SA.60165 – 2021/C (ex 2021/N) which Portugal is planning to implement for TAP SGPS (OJ 2022 L 139, p. 19).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 398, 17.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/469/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-808/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission 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: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600462EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/462


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission 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-808/25 P)

(C/2026/462)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek E. Mathieu, A. Spina, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Zakłady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A., Biogaran, Biogen Netherlands BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss the action as unfounded; and










—


order the applicant at first instance to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on single ground of appeal.
Error in law in the interpretation of Article 266 TFEU, as well as in interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004 (1), in concluding that the Commission could not adopt Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014) 601 (final) for the medicinal product ‘Tecfidera”, recognising an additional year of marketing protection.


(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/2026/462/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.12203 – ACS / GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT / JV)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: America, Europe, Indo-Pacific region, building industry, computer centre, economic concentration, investment company, joint venture, merger control








C_202600680EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/680


27.1.2026






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.12203 – ACS / GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2026/680)

On 10 December 2025, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32025M12203. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/680/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-82/25: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – LTV Leuchten & Lampen v EUIPO – XAL (Lighting fittings) (EU design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing a lighting fitting – Prior designs – Ground for invalidity – No disclosure of the prior designs – Prior designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity – Procedural irregularities before the Cancellation Division – Refusal to grant the applicant’s requests for measures of inquiry and for an oral hearing – Misuse of powers)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_202600649EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/649


9.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – LTV Leuchten & Lampen v EUIPO – XAL (Lighting fittings)


(Case T-82/25)
                (1)

(EU design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered EU design representing a lighting fitting - Prior designs - Ground for invalidity - No disclosure of the prior designs - Prior designs produced after the filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Procedural irregularities before the Cancellation Division - Refusal to grant the applicant’s requests for measures of inquiry and for an oral hearing - Misuse of powers)
(C/2026/649)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebs GmbH (Brunn am Gebirge, Austria) (represented by: C. Pilz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: XAL GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: D. Jestaedt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the alteration, or, at the very least, the annulment, of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2024 (Case R 1845/2023-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LTV Leuchten & Lampen Vertriebs GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by XAL GmbH;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2025/1664, 24.3.2025.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/649/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-219/23: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission (Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Bogie components – Decision rejecting a complaint – Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 – Technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem – Error of law – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Principle of good administration)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, cartel, control of restrictive practices, fire protection, rail safety, restriction on competition, systems interconnection, technical specification, vehicle on rails, vehicle parts








C_202600641EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/641


9.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Bategu Gummitechnologie v Commission


(Case T-219/23)
                (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bogie components - Decision rejecting a complaint - Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 - Technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Principle of good administration)
(C/2026/641)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Maderbacher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Keidel and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, I. Bodenstein and J. Langguth, lawyers), Stadler Deutschland GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Heinichen and C. Laitenberger, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2023) 1205 final of 15 February 2023 rejecting its complaint in Case ‘AT.40492 – Fire Protection Bogies’, adopted pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bategu Gummitechnologie GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Siemens AG;










3.


Orders Stadler Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 216, 19.6.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/641/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-807/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-257/23, Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600461EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/461


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-257/23, Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission


(Case C-807/25 P)

(C/2026/461)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, E. Mathieu, A. Spina, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals SL, Biogen Netherlands BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under the appeal;










—


dismiss the action as unfounded; and










—


order the applicant at first instance to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on single ground of appeal.
Error in law in the interpretation of Article 266 TFEU, as well as in interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004 (1), in concluding that the Commission could not adopt Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014) 601 (final) for the medicinal product ‘Tecfidera’, recognising an additional year of marketing protection.


(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/2026/461/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-810/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-351/23, Kern Pharma v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600464EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/464


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-351/23, Kern Pharma v Commission


(Case C-810/25 P)

(C/2026/464)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, E. Mathieu, A. Spina, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kern Pharma, SL, Biogen Netherlands BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss the action as unfounded; and










—


order the applicants at first instance to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant rely on single ground of appeal.
Error in law in the interpretation of Article 266 TFEU, as well as in interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004 (1), in concluding that the Commission could not adopt Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023 amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014) 601 (final) for the medicinal product ‘Tecfidera’, recognising an additional year of marketing protection.


(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/464/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-1129/23: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Intel Corporation v Commission (Competition – Abuse of dominant position – Microprocessors market – Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement – Naked restrictions – Consequences of the annulment in part of an earlier decision – Nature of the infringement – Amount of the fine – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Proportionality – Whether appropriate – Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, computer equipment, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic component, principle of proportionality, restrictive trade practice, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_202600471EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/471


2.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Intel Corporation v Commission


(Case T-1129/23)
                (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Microprocessors market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - ‘Naked’ restrictions - Consequences of the annulment in part of an earlier decision - Nature of the infringement - Amount of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Proportionality - Whether appropriate - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(C/2026/471)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. Meyring, J.-F. Bellis, lawyers, D. Beard and J. Williams, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and P. Caro de Sousa, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Articles 261 and 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2023) 5914 final of 22 September 2023 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.37990 – Intel) (‘the contested decision’) and, second, the cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on it in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders that Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2023) 5914 final of 22 September 2023 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.37990 – Intel) be varied so that the amount of the fine therein is set at EUR 237 105 540;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Intel Corporation Inc.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/774, 22.1.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/471/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-847/25: Action brought on 10 December 2025 – Xinjiang Guolin New Materials v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, chemical process, confidentiality, general legal principle, import (EU), maladministration, organic acid, originating product








C_202600495EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/495


2.2.2026






Action brought on 10 December 2025 – Xinjiang Guolin New Materials v Commission


(Case T-847/25)

(C/2026/495)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xinjiang Guolin New Materials Co. Ltd (Shihezi, China) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation 2025/1901 of 22 September 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyoxylic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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 that the Commission violated Articles 19(1) and 19(5) of the Basic Regulation and the general principles of EU law to protect business secrets and of good administration by publishing the cost of conversion at recital 76 of the Contested Regulation, which was submitted in confidence to the Commission.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by not using the applicant’s actual and verified ratio for converting glyoxylic acid crystals to solution form, and by replacing it with an incorrect and unsubstantiated one, resulting in an inflated injury margin in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to increase the export price by an amount for the costs necessary to convert glyoxylic acid crystals to solution when calculating the injury margin, which constitutes a manifest error of assessment in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1901 of 22 September 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of glyoxylic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/1901).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/495/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.11811 – TIL / HUTCHISON PORTS / TERCAT)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Catalonia, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, maritime transport, merger control, retail trade, telecommunications








C_202506763EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6763


22.12.2025






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.11811 – TIL / HUTCHISON PORTS / TERCAT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2025/6763)

On 10 December 2025, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.11811 – TIL / HUTCHISON PORTS / TERCAT, to the following 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’).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6763/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)