do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-653/22: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Silex v Commission (Research and technological development – Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Recovery of sums unduly paid under to a grant agreement – Challenge as to the validity of a contractual debt which has become final – Legal certainty – Inadmissible plea – Principle of good administration – Duty of diligence)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, debt, eligibility criteria, innovation, interest, project funding, reimbursement of aid, research and development








C_202600640EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/640


9.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Silex v Commission


(Case T-653/22)
                (1)

(Research and technological development - Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Recovery of sums unduly paid under to a grant agreement - Challenge as to the validity of a contractual debt which has become final - Legal certainty - Inadmissible plea - Principle of good administration - Duty of diligence)
(C/2026/640)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Silex Ipari Automatizálási Zrt. (Silex Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres, M. Ilkova and R. Onozó, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision C(2022) 5863 final of the European Commission of 8 August 2022, relating to the recovery of an amount of EUR 27 726,44 and late payment interest concerning the implementation of the grant agreement ‘739280 – Electric axle for commercial vehicles – ELECTRIC_AXLE’ concluded with the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Silex Ipari Automatizálási Zrt. (Silex Zrt.) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 463, 5.12.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/640/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-274/24: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – V4 Holding v EUIPO – V4 Financial Partners (V4 Financial Partners) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark V4 Financial Partners – Earlier national figurative mark V4 – Relative ground for invalidity – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, economic analysis, financial analysis, financial services, marketing, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202600473EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/473


2.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – V4 Holding v EUIPO – V4 Financial Partners (V4 Financial Partners)


(Case T-274/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark V4 Financial Partners - Earlier national figurative mark V4 - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2026/473)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: V4 Holding, a.s. (Čadca, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Michalec, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: V4 Financial Partners, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 March 2024 (Case R 2202/2022-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 March 2024 (Case R 2202/2022-4);











2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/4098, 8.7.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/473/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-809/25 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-278/23, Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600463EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/463


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-278/23, Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission


(Case C-809/25 P)

(C/2026/463)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Other parties to the proceedings: Zentiva k.s., Zentiva Pharma GmbH, 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/2026/463/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-811/25 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-393/23, Teva v Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600465EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/465


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-393/23, Teva v Commission


(Case C-811/25 P)

(C/2026/465)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Other parties to the proceedings: Teva GmbH, 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/2026/465/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-812/25 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-299/23, Hexal AG v European Commission
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disease of the nervous system, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_202600466EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/466


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 10 December 2025 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2025 in Case T-299/23, Hexal AG v European Commission



(Case C-812/25 P)

(C/2026/466)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, L. Haasbeek, E. Mathieu and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hexal AG, Biogen Netherlands BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;










—


order Hexal AG to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The European Commission relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 266 TFEU and Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (1) The General Court committed that error of law by ruling that the Commission was not able to issue 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’, which recognised 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/2026/466/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Notice concerning the harmonised classification of titanium dioxide as Carcinogenic Category 2 via inhalation according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: classification, dangerous substance, environmental protection, labelling, occupational safety, oxide, packaging, public health, titanium








C_202506670EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6670


10.12.2025






Notice concerning the harmonised classification of titanium dioxide as Carcinogenic Category 2 via inhalation according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(C/2025/6670)

Further to several applications (Cases T-279/20, T-283/20 and T-288/20) that were joined for the purposes of the judgment, the General Court, by its judgment of 23 November 2022, partially annulled Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 (1) as regards the harmonised classification and labelling of titanium dioxide in powder form containing 1 % or more of particles with aerodynamic diameter equal to or below 10 μm. France and the Commission appealed the General Court’s judgment at the Court of Justice of the European Union, which dismissed the appeals by its judgment of 1 August 2025 in Joined Cases C-71/23 P and C-82/23 P. The partial annulment of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 by the General Court is thus upheld.
As a consequence, titanium dioxide in powder form containing 1 % or more of particles with aerodynamic diameter equal to or below 10 μm is not subject to harmonised classification as Carcinogenic Category 2 via inhalation, as the row corresponding to index number 022-006-00-2, in point (2)(c) of Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 is annulled.
Moreover, the following parts of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 are also considered annulled:






(a)


Annex I










(b)


Annex II










(c)


In Annex III Note W and Note 10






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 of 4 October 2019 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation (OJ L 44, 18.2.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/217/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6670/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-518/24: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Cin Valentine v EUIPO – Daw (VAL --- ACRYL) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark VAL – ACRYL – Earlier EU word mark Malacryl – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2025-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202600644EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/644


9.2.2026






Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2025 – Cin Valentine v EUIPO – Daw (VAL --- ACRYL)


(Case T-518/24)
                (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VAL - ACRYL - Earlier EU word mark Malacryl - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2026/644)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cin Valentine, SA (Montcada I Reixac, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DAW SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by J. Voegeli-Wenzl and S. Krämer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 August 2024 (Case R 384/2024-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cin Valentine, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by DAW SE.










3.


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






(1)  
            OJ C, C/2024/7355, 16.12.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/644/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)