Skip to content
PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

Subjects · European Union

Defence

Records whose title is actually about this topic. Use a country filter if the list is still too broad.

301 records in EU

All countriesUnited States · 41,749Ireland · 23,760United Kingdom · 15,991Germany · 5,713France · 4,098Netherlands · 3,841Austria · 3,566European Union · 2,430Belgium · 5Search this topic

Records

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ0502decided

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2025.#Hashem Anwar Akkad v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned – Criterion of ‘leading businessperson operating in Syria’ – Presumption of a link with the Syrian regime – Error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to a fair trial – Right to effective judicial protection – Proportionality – Right to property – Right to private life – Damage to reputation – New plea in law.#Case T-502/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 7 May 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ0102_RESdecided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2025.#SBK Art OOO v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘association’ – Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1), in fine, of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Plea of illegality.#Case T-102/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 30 April 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ0102decided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2025.#SBK Art OOO v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘association’ – Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1), in fine, of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Plea of illegality.#Case T-102/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 30 April 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0356_RESdecided

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 March 2025 (Extracts).#LG Chem, Ltd. v European Commission.#Dumping – Import of superabsorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea – Regulation (EU) 2022/547 – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 3(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Determination of injury – Examination of the effect of the imports on prices for like products sold on the EU market – Analysis of price undercutting – Application of the product control number method – Causal link – Attribution and non-attribution analysis – Other known factors – Amount of anti-dumping duty – Rights of the defence – Principle of sound administration.#Case T-356/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 19 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0356decided

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 March 2025 (Extracts).#LG Chem, Ltd. v European Commission.#Dumping – Import of superabsorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea – Regulation (EU) 2022/547 – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 3(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Determination of injury – Examination of the effect of the imports on prices for like products sold on the EU market – Analysis of price undercutting – Application of the product control number method – Causal link – Attribution and non-attribution analysis – Other known factors – Amount of anti-dumping duty – Rights of the defence – Principle of sound administration.#Case T-356/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 19 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ0349_RESdecided

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 March 2025.#Monica Semedo v European Parliament.#Law governing the institutions – Member of Parliament – Psychological harassment – Decisions of the President of the Parliament finding that an accredited parliamentary assistant suffered psychological harassment and imposing on a Member the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance for 10 days – Right to be heard – Rights of the defence.#Case T-349/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 12 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ0349decided

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 March 2025.#Monica Semedo v European Parliament.#Law governing the institutions – Member of Parliament – Psychological harassment – Decisions of the President of the Parliament finding that an accredited parliamentary assistant suffered psychological harassment and imposing on a Member the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance for 10 days – Right to be heard – Rights of the defence.#Case T-349/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 12 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1158decided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2025.#deluxe holding ApS v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing electric candles – Ground for invalidity – Lack of individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Articles 4 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Rights of the defence – Scope of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal.#Case T-1158/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 12 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1158_INFdecided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2025.#deluxe holding ApS v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing electric candles – Ground for invalidity – Lack of individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Articles 4 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Rights of the defence – Scope of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal.#Case T-1158/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 12 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0249_INFdecided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2025.#Alexander Ponomarenko v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or subject to restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘supporting, materially or financially Russian decision-makers’ – Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Concept of ‘association’ – Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145 – Right to a fair trial – Right to effective judicial protection – Rights of the defence – Duty to state reasons – Proportionality – Right to property – Equal treatment.#Case T-249/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 5 March 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0249decided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2025.#Alexander Ponomarenko v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or subject to restrictions on admission to the territories of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘supporting, materially or financially Russian decision-makers’ – Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Concept of ‘association’ – Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145 – Right to a fair trial – Right to effective judicial protection – Rights of the defence – Duty to state reasons – Proportionality – Right to property – Equal treatment.#Case T-249/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 5 March 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62024CJ0277_SUMdecided

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025.#M. B. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 273 – Measures to ensure the correct collection of VAT – VAT debt of a taxable person – National legislation which provides for the joint and several liability of the former chairperson of the management board of the taxable person – Participation of the former chairperson of the management board in the proceedings establishing the existence of a VAT debt – Proceedings to invoke joint and several liability – Calling into question of the VAT debt – Rights of the defence – Proportionality.#Case C-277/24.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 27 February 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62024CJ0277decided

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2025.#M. B. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 273 – Measures to ensure the correct collection of VAT – VAT debt of a taxable person – National legislation which provides for the joint and several liability of the former chairperson of the management board of the taxable person – Participation of the former chairperson of the management board in the proceedings establishing the existence of a VAT debt – Proceedings to invoke joint and several liability – Calling into question of the VAT debt – Rights of the defence – Proportionality.#Case C-277/24.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 27 February 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62022CJ0339_RESdecided

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025.#BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 4(1) – General jurisdiction – Article 24(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over the registration or validity of patents – Infringement action – European patent validated in Member States and in a third State – Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence – International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action.#Case C-339/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 25 February 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62022CJ0339decided

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025.#BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 4(1) – General jurisdiction – Article 24(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Infringement action – European patent validated in Member States and in a third State – Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence – International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action.#Case C-339/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 25 February 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62023CJ0511decided

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2025.#Caronte & Tourist SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 102 TFEU – Abuse of dominant position – Empowering national competition authorities to enforce the rules on competition – Directive (EU) 2019/1 – Independence of national competition authorities – Article 4(5) – Setting priorities for the proceedings for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU – Fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings – Article 13 – Procedures for infringement of the rules of competition law – Compliance with a reasonable time limit – National legislation requiring the national authority to issue a statement of objections within a time limit of 90 days of knowledge of the essential elements of the infringement – Automatic annulment in its entirety of the decision of the national competition authority in the event of failure to comply with that time limit – Principle ne bis in idem – Revocation of the power to initiate new infringement proceedings in respect of the same facts – Principle of effectiveness – Rights of defence of undertakings.#Case C-511/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 30 January 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62023CJ0510decided

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2025.#Trenitalia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market – Directive 2005/29/EC – Measures intended to combat such practices – Articles 11 and 13 – Procedures for infringement of the rules of consumer law – Compliance with a reasonable time limit – National legislation requiring the national authority to issue a statement of objections within a time limit of 90 days of knowledge of the essential elements of the infringement – Automatic annulment in its entirety of the decision of the national authority in the event of failure to comply with that time limit – Principle ne bis in idem – Revocation of the power to initiate new infringement proceedings in respect of the same facts – Principle of effectiveness – Rights of defence of undertakings.#Case C-510/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 30 January 2025

Record· CJCELEX 62023CJ0511_RESdecided

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2025.#Caronte & Tourist SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 102 TFEU – Abuse of dominant position – Empowering national competition authorities to enforce the rules on competition – Directive (EU) 2019/1 – Independence of national competition authorities – Article 4(5) – Setting priorities for the proceedings for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU – Fines on undertakings and associations of undertakings – Article 13 – Procedures for infringement of the rules of competition law – Compliance with a reasonable time limit – National legislation requiring the national authority to issue a statement of objections within a time limit of 90 days of knowledge of the essential elements of the infringement – Automatic annulment in its entirety of the decision of the national competition authority in the event of failure to comply with that time limit – Principle ne bis in idem – Revocation of the power to initiate new infringement proceedings in respect of the same facts – Principle of effectiveness – Rights of defence of undertakings.#Case C-511/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 30 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0748decided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Retention of the of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ – Concept of ‘businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Right to effective judicial protection – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Legal certainty – Equal treatment.#Case T-748/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62022TJ0748_INFdecided

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor v Council of the European Union.#Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Retention of the of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ – Concept of ‘businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Right to effective judicial protection – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Legal certainty – Equal treatment.#Case T-748/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1065decided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control – Ground for invalidity – Characteristics of the appearance of a product dictated exclusively by its technical function – Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Facts relied on or evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Rights of the defence – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Principle of sound administration – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Case T-1065/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1065_INFdecided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control – Ground for invalidity – Characteristics of the appearance of a product dictated exclusively by its technical function – Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Facts relied on or evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Rights of the defence – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Principle of sound administration – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Case T-1065/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1064_INFdecided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control – Ground for invalidity – Characteristics of the appearance of a product exclusively imposed by the technical function of that product – Articles 8(1) and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Facts relied on or evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Rights of the defence – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Principle of sound administration – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Case T-1064/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

Record· TJCELEX 62023TJ1064decided

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 January 2025.#ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an accessory for a wireless remote control – Ground for invalidity – Characteristics of the appearance of a product exclusively imposed by the technical function of that product – Articles 8(1) and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Facts relied on or evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Rights of the defence – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Principle of sound administration – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Obligation to state reasons – Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Case T-1064/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 15 January 2025

PreviousPage 6 of 7Next