Review of the EU legislation for 08/11/2024

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2776

This regulation amends the notification forms used in the EU merger control process to correct inaccuracies and ensure consistency with Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Key amendments include updates to definitions, formats, and requirements, particularly regarding “affected markets” and electronic submissions. These adjustments improve clarity and transparency in assessing mergers.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2747: Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act

Establishes a framework for crisis management within the EU, ensuring the free movement of essential goods and services. It creates the Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Board, vigilance and emergency modes, and provisions for public procurement and data protection, enhancing market resilience and crisis response.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2748

Amends existing regulations to introduce emergency procedures for conformity assessment and market surveillance during crises, allowing swift market access for critical goods. It enables prioritization and temporary national authorizations, ensuring availability and compliance of essential products during emergencies.

Directive (EU) 2024/2749

Introduces emergency procedures in existing directives for conformity assessment and market surveillance during EU internal market emergencies. It prioritizes conformity assessments for crisis-relevant goods and permits market entry without standard assessments under specified conditions, complementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2747.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2844

Announces a fisheries closure for saithe in Norwegian waters for French vessels due to quota exhaustion. The regulation prohibits active fishing but allows retention and processing of catches made before the closure, ensuring compliance and sustainable fishing practices.

Directive (EU) 2024/2839

Amends EU directives to streamline reporting requirements, reducing administrative burdens in food safety, noise, healthcare, and radio equipment sectors. Changes include extending reporting cycles and eliminating redundant obligations, maintaining effective monitoring while easing administrative tasks.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2838

Simplifies reporting requirements in fishery products marketing and vehicle approval, reducing administrative burdens. It eliminates outdated expert listing and unnecessary type-approval reporting, aligning with EU competitiveness strategies by enhancing efficiency and reducing bureaucracy.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2547

Updates the list of dual-use items in Regulation (EU) 2021/821, aligning EU controls with international security commitments. This update ensures immediate compliance with international regimes, applying uniformly across Member States to manage dual-use goods effectively.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) – 7 November 2024

Examines the compatibility of Italian legislation with EU law on customs assistance centers’ territorial operations. The Court emphasizes that territorial restrictions must be justified by public interest and comply with EU service provision principles, balancing national autonomy with internal market rules.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) – 7 November 2024

Addresses unfair terms in consumer contracts, affirming that while res judicata applies, effective judicial protection must ensure consumers can challenge unfair terms. Member States must guarantee informed consumer rights and procedural fairness, balancing national autonomy with EU protection standards.

Judgment of the Court – Polish Judicial Independence

Highlights issues of judicial independence under EU law, addressing the admissibility of cases from judges appointed under contested procedures. Emphasizes the need for judicial bodies to be legally established and independent, impacting EU judicial cooperation and national reforms.

Judgment on VAT Classification of Land

Clarifies VAT classification for land with building foundations under Directive 2006/112/EC, deeming it “building land” subject to VAT. Ensures consistent VAT application across Member States for partially developed land, enhancing legal certainty in tax matters.

Judgment on Dutch Tax Legislation and Free Movement of Capital

Analyzes Dutch tax laws under TFEU Article 63(1), addressing discrimination against non-resident companies. The Court finds differential treatment restricts capital movement, aligning national tax laws with EU principles to ensure non-resident companies are not disadvantaged.

Judgment on Directive 2014/23/EU and Concession Modifications

Interprets the directive on modifying concession contracts post-Morandi Bridge collapse, allowing modifications without new procedures for unforeseen circumstances. Emphasizes transparency and justification in modifications, guiding authorities in complying with EU rules.

Judgment on State Aid to Finnair

Upholds state aid to Finnair under TFEU Article 107(3)(b) during COVID-19, affirming aid compatibility with the internal market. The Court supports the Commission’s flexible application of the Temporary Framework, addressing non-discrimination and proportionality in aid measures.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2776 of 31 October 2024 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/914 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2776 Overview

The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2776, issued on October 31, 2024, corrects inaccuracies found in the notification forms related to the control of concentrations between undertakings as per Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/914. This regulation is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and effectiveness of the merger control process within the EU, aligning with Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

Structure and Key Amendments

The regulation is structured into several articles and an annex that details the specific corrections to the notification forms. The key amendments involve:

• Corrections to the definitions and requirements for “affected markets” in the notification forms.
• Adjustments to the tables and summaries in Sections 1, 7, 8, and other sections of the Annexes I, II, and III to ensure clarity and accuracy in the data required for notifications.
• Updates to the format and information requirements of the notification forms, including electronic submission formats.

These changes are intended to address inaccuracies and improve the standardized process of examining notifications related to concentrations under the EU merger control framework.

Significant Provisions

The most critical provisions of this regulation include:

• Article 1, which mandates the correction of the Annexes to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/914, ensuring that the notification forms accurately reflect the necessary information for assessing concentrations.
• The introduction of a corrected definition of “affected markets,” which impacts how market overlaps and vertical relationships are identified and analyzed in merger cases.
• Clarification of the summary requirements for notifying parties, ensuring that summaries are non-confidential and suitable for publication without revealing business secrets.
• Standardized conditions under which market shares and competition concerns must be reported, enhancing the predictability and transparency of the merger review process.

These provisions are essential for legal certainty and the effective functioning of the EU’s merger control regime, facilitating smoother and more precise assessments of proposed concentrations.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2747 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 establishing a framework of measures related to an internal market emergency and to the resilience of the internal market and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 (Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act) (Text with EEA relevance)

Regulation (EU) 2024/2747: Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act

The Regulation (EU) 2024/2747 establishes a framework for managing internal market emergencies and enhancing market resilience within the European Union. It aims to ensure the free movement of goods, services, and persons, and to maintain the availability of essential goods and services during crises.

Structure and Main Provisions

The regulation is structured into several key sections, each addressing different aspects of crisis management and market resilience:

• General Provisions: Defines the scope, objectives, and key definitions related to the regulation.
• Governance: Establishes the Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Board, outlining its composition and tasks to facilitate crisis management.
• Internal Market Vigilance: Introduces the vigilance mode for monitoring potential crises and outlines criteria for activation and deactivation.
• Internal Market Emergency: Details the emergency mode activation criteria, measures to ensure free movement, and procedures for addressing shortages of crisis-relevant goods and services.
• Public Procurement: Provides rules for procurement during emergencies, including joint procurement procedures and the Commission’s role in coordinating efforts.
• Data Protection and Digital Tools: Sets out provisions for protecting personal data and confidentiality, and establishes digital tools for efficient crisis management.
• Final Provisions: Includes reporting, evaluation, and amendments to existing regulations to align with the new framework.

Key Provisions for Use

The regulation introduces several critical measures that are essential for its implementation:

• Internal Market Vigilance and Emergency Modes: These modes allow for proactive monitoring and response to potential and actual market disruptions, ensuring that the EU can act swiftly in times of crisis.
• Role of the Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Board: The Board is tasked with advising the Commission on crisis preparedness and response, ensuring coordinated actions across Member States.
• Information Requests and Priority-rated Requests: The regulation empowers the Commission to request necessary information from economic operators and prioritize the production or supply of essential goods during emergencies.
• Public Procurement Flexibilities: Provides mechanisms for joint procurement and expedited procedures to secure critical goods and services efficiently.
• Transparency and Communication: Ensures that information about crisis-related measures is shared transparently with stakeholders, including citizens and businesses, to facilitate informed decision-making.

This regulation marks a significant step in strengthening the EU’s internal market resilience and ensuring a coordinated response to future crises, building on lessons learned from past events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2748 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 amending Regulations (EU) No 305/2011, (EU) 2016/424, (EU) 2016/425, (EU) 2016/426, (EU) 2023/988 and (EU) 2023/1230 as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to an internal market emergency (Text with EEA relevance)

Regulation (EU) 2024/2748 Overview

Essence of the Act: Regulation (EU) 2024/2748 modifies several existing regulations to introduce emergency procedures for conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, and market surveillance during internal market emergencies. This regulation aims to ensure that critical goods and services can be swiftly placed on the market during crises, enhancing the resilience of the EU internal market.

Structure and Key Provisions:

• The regulation amends six existing EU regulations: (EU) No 305/2011, (EU) 2016/424, (EU) 2016/425, (EU) 2016/426, (EU) 2023/988, and (EU) 2023/1230.
• Introduces definitions for “crisis-relevant goods” and “internal market emergency mode” in each amended regulation.
• Establishes new chapters in each regulation to outline emergency procedures applicable only during activated internal market emergency modes.
• Allows for prioritization of conformity assessments and market surveillance for crisis-relevant goods.
• Permits derogations from usual conformity assessment procedures, allowing national authorities to authorize market placement of goods not yet fully compliant under specific conditions.
• Includes provisions for mutual assistance among national market surveillance authorities and the European Commission’s role in coordinating these efforts.

Important Provisions for Use:

• The regulation enables rapid market access for crisis-relevant goods by prioritizing their assessment and verification processes.
• It provides the legal framework for temporary national authorizations that can be extended EU-wide, ensuring broader availability of critical products during emergencies.
• Standards and common specifications can be established to support the presumption of conformity for products, facilitating their market entry during crises.
• The regulation ensures that market surveillance is enhanced and coordinated across the EU, maintaining safety and compliance standards even in emergency conditions.
• By setting conditions for emergency procedures, the regulation maintains a balance between swift action in crises and adherence to essential safety and performance requirements.

Conclusion: Regulation (EU) 2024/2748 is a significant legislative update aimed at strengthening the EU’s internal market resilience by allowing for rapid and coordinated responses to emergencies, ensuring that essential goods and services remain accessible and safe during crises.

Directive (EU) 2024/2749 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2006/42/EC, 2010/35/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU and 2014/68/EU as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to an internal market emergency (Text with EEA relevance)

Directive (EU) 2024/2749 Overview

This Directive amends several existing EU Directives to introduce emergency procedures for conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, adoption of common specifications, and market surveillance in response to internal market emergencies. It aims to ensure the swift placement of crisis-relevant goods on the market to mitigate disruptions during crises.

Structure and Main Provisions

The Directive is structured to amend existing Directives such as 2000/14/EC, 2006/42/EC, 2010/35/EU, among others. The main changes include the introduction of emergency procedures, prioritization of conformity assessments for crisis-relevant goods, and the possibility for national authorities to authorize market entry without usual conformity assessments under certain conditions. These amendments are designed to complement Regulation (EU) 2024/2747, which establishes a framework for internal market emergencies.

Key Provisions

• Emergency Procedures: These are activated only during an internal market emergency and when a good is designated as crisis-relevant. The Commission can adopt implementing acts to manage these procedures.
• Prioritization of Conformity Assessments: Notified bodies must prioritize assessments for crisis-relevant goods without imposing disproportionate costs on manufacturers.
• Derogation from Standard Procedures: Member States can authorize the market entry of goods without the usual conformity assessments if safety compliance is demonstrated. Such authorizations can be extended EU-wide by the Commission.
• Presumption of Conformity: The Directive allows for alternative technical solutions to establish conformity in the absence of harmonized standards, especially in crisis situations.
• Market Surveillance and Mutual Assistance: Member States are encouraged to prioritize market surveillance activities for crisis-relevant goods and assist each other during emergencies.

This Directive enables a flexible and rapid response to crises affecting the EU internal market, ensuring essential goods can be distributed swiftly without compromising safety standards.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2844 of 31 October 2024 establishing a fisheries closure for saithe in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 for vessels flying the flag of France

Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2844 Overview

This regulation, adopted by the European Commission, establishes a fisheries closure for saithe (Pollachius virens) in Norwegian waters of areas 1 and 2 for vessels flying the French flag. The closure is due to the exhaustion of the French quota for this fish stock for the year 2024.

Structure and Main Provisions

The regulation consists of three main articles, each outlining specific aspects of the fisheries closure:

• Article 1 – Quota exhaustion: Declares that the fishing quota allocated to France for saithe in the specified Norwegian waters is exhausted from the date mentioned in the annex.
• Article 2 – Prohibitions: Details the prohibitions on fishing activities for saithe by French vessels, including searching, setting, and hauling fishing gear. It also addresses the handling of unintended catches and allows certain activities like transshipping and processing for catches made before the closure date.
• Article 3 – Entry into force: Specifies that the regulation becomes effective the day after its publication in the Official Journal.

The regulation also includes an annex specifying the closing date for the fishing activities as 26 July 2024.

Key Provisions for Practical Use

The most critical provisions to be aware of include:

• The prohibition of active fishing activities for saithe by French-flagged vessels in the designated Norwegian waters starting from the closure date.
• The allowance for the retention, processing, and landing of saithe caught before the closure date, ensuring that these activities are compliant with existing regulations.
• The requirement to record and count unintended catches against quotas as per the Common Fisheries Policy, ensuring sustainable fishing practices.

This regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable to all EU Member States, ensuring uniform application across the Union.

Directive (EU) 2024/2839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Directives 1999/2/EC, 2000/14/EC, 2011/24/EU and 2014/53/EU as regards certain reporting requirements in the fields of food and food ingredients, outdoor noise, patients’ rights, and radio equipment (Text with EEA relevance)

Directive (EU) 2024/2839 Summary

This directive amends several existing EU directives to streamline reporting requirements in the fields of food and food ingredients, outdoor noise, patients’ rights, and radio equipment. The main goal is to reduce administrative burdens by simplifying or eliminating certain reporting obligations while maintaining effective monitoring and enforcement of regulations.

Structure and Amendments

• The directive consists of seven articles, each addressing specific amendments to different directives.
• Article 1 amends Directive 1999/2/EC by replacing paragraphs related to reporting on ionising irradiation facilities, focusing instead on the approval and status changes of these facilities.
• Article 2 modifies Directive 2000/14/EC by deleting the requirement to send EC declarations of conformity and the obligation to review noise data, as the necessary information is already available on the equipment.
• Article 3 changes the reporting frequency in Directive 2011/24/EU from every three years to every five years to align with evaluation cycles and reduce administrative load.
• Article 4 amends Directive 2014/53/EU, adjusting the reporting frequency to every five years, aligning with the Commission’s reporting obligations.
• Articles 5 to 7 cover procedural aspects such as transposition, entry into force, and addresses of the directive.

Key Provisions and Importance

• The directive removes redundant annual reporting requirements for ionising irradiation checks, relying instead on existing reports under Regulation (EU) 2017/625.
• It eliminates the need for manufacturers to send noise emission conformity declarations, as this information is already accessible to consumers on the equipment itself.
• By changing the reporting frequency for cross-border healthcare and radio equipment directives, the directive aims to reduce repetitive administrative tasks, allowing for more efficient use of resources.
• These changes are designed to maintain the effectiveness of monitoring and enforcement while significantly reducing the administrative burden on Member States and the European Commission.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2845 of 31 October 2024 establishing a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7h, 7j and 7k for vessels flying the flag of France

The essence of the act:
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2845 establishes a fisheries closure for the common sole in areas 7h, 7j, and 7k for vessels flying the flag of France. The regulation is enacted due to the exhaustion of the fishing quota allocated to France for these areas in 2024.
Structure and main provisions:
The regulation is structured into a preamble and three main articles, followed by an annex. The preamble provides the legal basis and context, referencing relevant EU regulations and the exhaustion of the French quota for common sole. Article 1 declares the quota as exhausted. Article 2 lists prohibitions on fishing activities for the specified stock by French vessels, while allowing certain activities for catches made before the closure date. Article 3 specifies the regulation’s entry into force. The annex details the specific closure information, including the member state, species, zones, and closing date.
Main provisions for use:
The crucial provisions include the prohibition of fishing activities for common sole by French vessels in the specified areas from the indicated closure date, which is July 26, 2024. The regulation also outlines that any unintended catches must be recorded and counted against quotas in accordance with the Common Fisheries Policy. These provisions are critical for compliance by French fishing operations and help ensure sustainable fishing practices in EU waters.

Regulation (EU) 2024/2838 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013, (EU) No 167/2013 and (EU) No 168/2013 as regards certain reporting requirements (Text with EEA relevance)

Regulation (EU) 2024/2838: Streamlining Reporting Requirements

This regulation, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, amends existing EU regulations to simplify reporting requirements. It focuses on reducing administrative burdens in the areas of marketing standards for fishery products and the approval and market surveillance of various vehicles. This streamlining effort aligns with the EU’s broader strategy for long-term competitiveness.

Structure and Main Provisions

The regulation is structured into four main articles:

1. Article 1 amends Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, specifically modifying Article 47 to exclude outdated requirements related to the listing of experts and trade organizations for grading fishery products.
2. Article 2 amends Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 by deleting Articles 74 and 75, which previously required Member States to report on type-approval procedures for agricultural and forestry vehicles.
3. Article 3 amends Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 by removing Articles 78 and 80, which concerned reporting obligations for two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.
4. Article 4 outlines the regulation’s entry into force, set for twenty days post-publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Key Provisions for Implementation

The regulation’s key focus is on abolishing redundant reporting requirements that have been deemed unnecessary. For instance, the removal of Article 13 from Regulation (EC) No 2406/96, which required the listing of experts for fishery product grading, is a significant change. Similarly, the deletion of specific articles from Regulations (EU) No 167/2013 and No 168/2013 eliminates the need for Member States to report on the application of type-approval procedures, thus reducing the administrative workload. These changes are based on studies indicating that existing procedures are satisfactory and do not require further reporting.
This regulation represents a concerted effort by the EU to enhance efficiency and reduce bureaucratic demands, ensuring that reporting requirements serve their intended purpose without imposing unnecessary burdens.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2547 of 5 September 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items

Essence of the Act

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2547 serves to amend the existing Regulation (EU) 2021/821 by updating the list of dual-use items, which are goods, software, and technology with both civilian and military applications. This update aligns the EU’s control of such items with international security obligations and commitments.

Structure and Main Provisions

The regulation is composed of two articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2021/821, introducing a new list of dual-use items. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation becomes effective immediately upon publication. The annex provides a detailed list of controlled dual-use items, incorporating changes from international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements made in 2023.

Main Provisions

• Updated List of Dual-Use Items: This regulation revises the list of dual-use items, ensuring it reflects the latest international control lists from organizations such as the Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
• Immediate Compliance: The regulation mandates immediate compliance with international security obligations, with the updated list becoming enforceable upon publication.
• Direct Applicability: The regulation is binding and directly applicable across all EU Member States, ensuring a uniform approach to the control of dual-use items throughout the Union.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.LS v PL.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 – Article 10(1) – Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession – Deceased person habitually resident in a third State at the time of death – Criterion of the location of the assets of the estate in a Member State – Decisive point in time – Assessment at the time of death.Case C-291/23.

The Essence of the Act:
This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addresses the interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, specifically concerning the jurisdiction in matters of succession where the deceased was habitually resident in a third State at the time of death. The key issue resolved is the determination of when assets must be located in a Member State for its courts to claim jurisdiction over the succession.
Structure and Main Provisions:
The judgment is structured around the interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation No 650/2012, which deals with subsidiary jurisdiction in succession matters. It includes:

• Recitals from the Regulation highlighting the aim to facilitate the internal market by removing obstacles for citizens dealing with cross-border successions.
• Article 4, which establishes general jurisdiction based on the habitual residence of the deceased.
• Article 10, which outlines subsidiary jurisdiction criteria, allowing Member State courts to exercise jurisdiction if the deceased’s assets are located there, provided certain conditions are met.

The judgment clarifies that the relevant time for determining the location of assets is the time of death, not when the court is seised. This interpretation is consistent with the Regulation’s emphasis on legal certainty and predictable succession rules.
Main Provisions for Use:
The primary provision of interest in this judgment is the interpretation of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. The Court ruled that for a Member State court to exercise jurisdiction based on the location of assets, those assets must be present in the Member State at the time of the deceased’s death. This ruling ensures that jurisdiction is based on stable and predictable factors, aligning with the Regulation’s goals of legal certainty and effective rights protection for heirs and creditors. This interpretation prevents complications from post-death asset movements, thereby facilitating smoother cross-border succession proceedings.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria and S.E.I v A and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Directive (EU) 2019/1023 – Procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt – Article 1(4) – Subject matter and scope – Extension of procedures to insolvent natural persons who are not entrepreneurs – Article 20 – Access to discharge of debt – Article 23(1), (2) and (4) – Derogations – Exclusion of specific categories of debt from discharge of debt – Natural person who has become insolvent – Good faith of the debtor – Conditions for access to discharge of debt – Exclusion of claims governed by public law.Joined Cases C-289/23 and C-305/23.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) – 7 November 2024

This judgment addresses the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 concerning restructuring, insolvency, and discharge of debt. It particularly focuses on the applicability of this directive to insolvent natural persons who are not entrepreneurs, and the conditions under which debts can be discharged, including exceptions and derogations.

Structure and Main Provisions

The judgment is structured around requests for preliminary rulings from Spanish courts concerning the application of Directive (EU) 2019/1023. It examines:

• Article 1(4) on the extension of insolvency procedures to non-entrepreneurs.
• Article 20 on access to debt discharge.
• Article 23 on derogations and exclusions from debt discharge.

The judgment clarifies that the list of circumstances under Article 23(2) for denying or restricting debt discharge is not exhaustive, allowing Member States to introduce additional conditions if they are well-defined and justified.

Main Provisions for Use

The judgment highlights key provisions for practical application:

• Member States can extend insolvency procedures to non-entrepreneurs but must adhere to the directive’s comprehensive framework.
• The conditions for excluding certain debts from discharge must be duly justified under national law.
• Member States have discretion in defining what constitutes “dishonesty” or “bad faith” but must ensure these are well-defined and justified.
• General exclusions, such as those for public law debts, are permissible if they are justified by a legitimate public interest.

This judgment is significant for legal practitioners and policymakers dealing with insolvency and debt restructuring, as it provides clarity on the application of EU law and the discretion allowed to Member States in implementing the directive’s provisions.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.UD and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Ministero dell’Interno.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2004/80/EC – Article 12(2) – National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime – Homicide – Compensation for close family members of the deceased – Concept of ‘victim’ – ‘Tiered’ compensation scheme according to the order of succession – National legislation excluding the payment of compensation to other family members of the deceased when there are children or a surviving spouse – Parents and siblings of the deceased – ‘Fair and appropriate’ compensation.Case C-126/23.

Essence of the Act:
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered on 7 November 2024, interprets Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC, which mandates Member States to ensure fair and appropriate compensation for victims of violent intentional crimes. The case focuses on whether national legislation that limits compensation to certain family members of homicide victims aligns with this directive.
Structure of the Act:
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with an introduction to the case, a description of the legal context including EU and national laws, followed by the details of the main proceedings and questions referred for a preliminary ruling. The Court addresses the admissibility of the questions and provides a detailed analysis of the first question, concerning the interpretation of the term “victims” within the directive. The judgment concludes with the Court’s ruling and a brief section on costs.
Main Provisions:

• The Court interprets “victims” within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC to include indirect victims, such as family members of a deceased person, who suffer consequences of the crime.
• The judgment emphasizes that national compensation schemes must provide fair and appropriate compensation, which should not be purely symbolic or insufficient considering the seriousness of the crime’s consequences.
• The Court rules that national legislation cannot automatically exclude certain family members from compensation based solely on succession priority, without considering the actual harm suffered.
• The decision highlights that compensation should consider the material and non-material suffering of the victims, and should not rely solely on predefined familial relationships to determine eligibility.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Centro di Assistenza Doganale (Cad) Mellano Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli – Agenzia delle Dogane – Direzione Interregionale per la Liguria and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 18 – Customs representative – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2006/123/EC – Articles 10 and 15 – Customs assistance centres – Territorial limitation of the activity – Restriction – Justification.Case C-503/23.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) – 7 November 2024

Essence of the Act

This judgment addresses the compatibility of Italian national legislation with EU law, focusing on whether customs assistance centers (CADs) can operate beyond their registered office’s customs district. The Court examines the Union Customs Code and Directive 2006/123/EC regarding service provision and territorial restrictions.

Structure and Main Provisions

The judgment is structured around the interpretation of Article 18 of the Union Customs Code and Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC. It examines the conditions under which customs representatives can provide services, both within their Member State and across the EU. The Court considers the relevance of territorial restrictions and their justification under EU law, specifically relating to the freedom to provide services.

Main Provisions

• Article 18 of the Union Customs Code: Allows Member States to set conditions for customs representatives providing services within their territory, provided these conditions comply with EU law.
• Directive 2006/123/EC: Requires that any territorial restrictions on service provision must be non-discriminatory, necessary, and proportionate, justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest.
• Italian Legislation: The Italian law restricts CADs to operate only within the customs district of their registered office, which the Court examines for compliance with EU law.

Important Considerations

The Court ruled that the territorial restriction imposed by Italian law on CADs must not contravene EU law. It emphasized that such restrictions should not be applied inconsistently and should be justifiable by a public interest reason, ensuring that no less restrictive measures could achieve the same objective. This decision underscores the balance between national regulatory autonomy and the overarching principles of the EU’s internal market.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.ERB New Europe Funding II v YI.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Powers and obligations of the national court – First legal remedy pursued by the consumer before the court of the place where the seller or supplier has its registered office, without the assistance of a lawyer and without that consumer attending the hearing – Second legal remedy pursued by the consumer before the court of his or her place of domicile, with the assistance of a lawyer – Res judicata – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection of the consumer.Case C-178/23.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) – 7 November 2024

The judgment in Case C‑178/23 addresses the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in light of the principle of effectiveness and the right to effective judicial protection as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The case involved ERB New Europe Funding II and a consumer, YI, concerning the alleged unfairness of certain credit agreement terms.

Structure and Key Provisions

The judgment is structured around the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș in Romania. It addresses the following main issues:

• The procedural context under which the consumer first pursued legal remedy without a lawyer and did not attend the hearing, and later pursued a second remedy with legal assistance.
• The principle of res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties).
• The obligation of Member States under Directive 93/13 to provide effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in consumer contracts.
• The balance between national procedural autonomy and the need to ensure effective judicial protection for consumers under EU law.

This judgment reaffirms that while EU law does not require national courts to disregard the principle of res judicata, it mandates that consumer protection must be effective, meaning national rules should not make it excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law.

Main Provisions for Use

The Court clarified that:

• Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 does not compel a national court to re-examine contractual terms already adjudicated by another court with res judicata status, provided that the consumer was properly informed of remedies and no procedural irregularities prevented the consumer from exercising their rights.
• The principle of effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter require that consumers must have access to effective judicial protection, ensuring they can challenge unfair terms if procedural shortcomings in earlier proceedings hindered their ability to do so.
• National courts must ensure that consumers are informed of their rights and potential remedies, and any decision must be adequately reasoned to facilitate the consumer’s understanding and response.

This decision emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and consumer awareness in judicial proceedings concerning unfair contract terms, balancing national legal doctrines with EU consumer protection standards.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.C.W. S.A. and Others v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ – Judge of the Civil Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) – Judge appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) in its new composition – Reference for a preliminary ruling from a panel of judges without the status of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Inadmissibility.Case C-326/23.

Essence of the Act

This judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addresses a preliminary ruling request from the Polish Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It involves the admissibility of a request made by a judge appointed under contested circumstances, questioning whether such appointments align with EU standards for judicial independence and impartiality.

Structure and Main Provisions

The judgment is structured into several key sections:

• Introduction and Context: The case involves Polish companies contesting fines imposed for breaching competition law, with a focus on the legitimacy of the judicial panel’s composition.
• Relevant Polish Legislation: It references Polish constitutional provisions and laws concerning judicial appointments and the role of the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).
• Judicial Analysis: The CJEU examines whether the single-judge formation of the Polish Supreme Court constitutes a ‘court or tribunal’ under EU law, considering previous European Court of Human Rights judgments and national court decisions regarding the independence of judges appointed by the reformed KRS.
• Admissibility Decision: The CJEU ultimately finds the request inadmissible due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the referring judge, based on systemic irregularities in their appointment.

Main Provisions for Use

The judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Judicial Independence: It underscores the importance of judicial independence and impartiality as fundamental principles of EU law, particularly in the context of member states’ adherence to these principles in their national legal systems.
• Criteria for Admissibility: The ruling clarifies that a request for a preliminary ruling must come from a body that qualifies as a ‘court or tribunal’ under EU law, which includes being established by law and being independent.
• Impact of National Reforms: The decision highlights how national judicial reforms, such as those in Poland, can affect the admissibility of preliminary ruling requests and the broader implications for EU judicial cooperation.

The judgment serves as a crucial reference for understanding the interplay between national judicial reforms and EU legal standards, particularly concerning the principles of judicial independence and impartiality.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Skatteministeriet v Lomoco Development ApS and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Supply of land that has only the foundations of residential housing structures in place – Classification – Article 12 – Concepts of ‘building land’ and ‘building or parts of a building’ – Criterion of the ‘first occupation’ of a building.Case C-594/23.

Essence of the Act

The judgment addresses the interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 2006/112/EC concerning the classification for VAT purposes of land with only the foundations of residential structures. The Court determined that such land should be considered “building land” subject to VAT.

Structure of the Act

The judgment begins by stating the legal question referred to the Court by the Vestre Landsret (High Court of Western Denmark). It then reviews the relevant provisions of the VAT Directive, particularly Article 12 and Article 135. The judgment proceeds to analyze these provisions in light of the facts of the case, particularly focusing on whether land with foundations can be classified as a “building” or “parts of a building” before first occupation. The Court concludes by stating that the land should be classified as “building land,” thus subject to VAT.

Main Provisions of the Act

• Article 12 of Directive 2006/112/EC: Defines the criteria for classifying a supply of land or buildings as subject to VAT, particularly focusing on the concepts of “building land” and “first occupation.”
• Article 135: Lists exemptions from VAT, which do not include building land as defined in Article 12.
• Interpretation of “Building Land”: The Court clarifies that land with only the foundations of a building does not qualify as a “building” or “parts of a building” under Article 12, thus it remains classified as “building land” for VAT purposes.

The judgment is significant as it provides clarity on the classification of partially developed land in the context of VAT, ensuring that such transactions are taxed consistently across Member States.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2024.XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63(1) TFEU – Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Taxation of dividends – Equal treatment of resident and non-resident companies – National legislation reserving to resident companies the possibility of deducting from their taxable profits relating to dividends the expenses corresponding to their commitments to their customers under ‘unit-linked’ insurance contracts and of offsetting in full taxation of the dividends against corporation tax.Case C-782/22.

Essence of the Judgment

This judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) deals with the interpretation of Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which concerns the free movement of capital. The case addresses whether the Netherlands’ tax legislation, which imposes a 15% dividend tax on non-resident companies while allowing resident companies to offset this tax entirely against their corporation tax liability, constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.

Structure and Main Provisions

The judgment is structured around the analysis of whether the Dutch legislation creates a discriminatory tax regime that restricts the free movement of capital. It begins with the background of the case, detailing the facts and the national legal framework. The judgment then examines the comparability of the tax situations of resident and non-resident companies, focusing on the treatment of dividend taxation. Key provisions include Article 63(1) TFEU, concerning free movement of capital, and the relevant Dutch tax laws that differentiate between resident and non-resident companies.
The judgment does not introduce changes to previous versions as it is specific to the interpretation of existing EU law in the context of the case presented.

Important Provisions for Use

The most critical part of this judgment is the interpretation of Article 63(1) TFEU in relation to national tax legislation that treats resident and non-resident companies differently regarding dividend taxation. The Court emphasizes that such differential treatment constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital unless justified by an overriding reason in the public interest. Additionally, the judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that non-resident companies are not subject to a heavier tax burden than resident companies for the same type of income. This interpretation is essential for EU Member States in aligning their national tax laws with EU principles on the free movement of capital.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Adusbef – Associazione difesa utenti servizi bancari e finanziari v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/23/EU – Procedure for awarding concession contracts – Article 43 – Modification made to a concession during its term without opening up to competition – Concession of motorways – Collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa (Italy) – National proceedings for serious failure to fulfil motorway network maintenance and preservation obligations – New obligations imposed on the concessionaire – Obligation of the contracting authority to make a prior decision on whether it is necessary to organise a new award procedure – Obligation of the contracting authority to carry out a prior examination of the reliability of the concessionaire.Case C-683/22.

Judgment Overview: Directive 2014/23/EU and Concession Modifications

The Court’s judgment in Case C‑683/22 addresses the interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU regarding the modification of concession contracts, particularly in the context of the aftermath of the Morandi Bridge collapse in Genoa, Italy. The judgment clarifies when modifications to a concession contract require a new award procedure and under what circumstances a contracting authority must assess the reliability of a concessionaire.

Structure and Key Provisions of the Judgment

The judgment is structured around the interpretation of Articles 38, 43, and 44 of Directive 2014/23/EU. It examines the legal framework for modifying concession contracts without a new award procedure, focusing on:

• Article 43: Outlines the conditions under which a concession may be modified without a new award procedure. It specifies that modifications are permissible if they do not alter the overall nature of the concession and occur due to unforeseeable circumstances.
• Article 38: Discusses the selection and assessment criteria for concessionaires, emphasizing the importance of evaluating their reliability and professional conduct.
• Article 44: Provides for the termination of concessions if modifications breach procedural requirements or if the concessionaire’s reliability is in question.

Key Provisions for Application

The judgment highlights several crucial points for the application of Directive 2014/23/EU:

• Concessions can be modified without a new procedure if unforeseen circumstances necessitate the change and do not alter the concession’s overall nature.
• A contracting authority must justify why a new award procedure is not required, ensuring transparency and adherence to sound administration principles.
• If a concession modification involves a significant failure by the concessionaire, the authority must assess the concessionaire’s reliability unless the modification falls under specific exemptions.
• Member States must establish rules for addressing serious failures by concessionaires, allowing contracting authorities to react appropriately during the concession term.

This judgment provides clarity on the procedural requirements and discretion available to contracting authorities in modifying concession contracts, ensuring compliance with EU law while accommodating unforeseen developments.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Ryanair DAC v European Commission.Appeal – State aid – Article 107(3)(b) TFEU – Finnish air-transport market – Aid granted to an airline by the Republic of Finland in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – Temporary Framework for State aid measures – Recapitalisation of Finnair plc – Decision by the European Commission not to raise any objections – Aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy – Principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination.Case C-588/22 P.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) – Overview

This judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addresses an appeal by Ryanair DAC against a decision allowing state aid to Finnair by the Republic of Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court upheld the European Commission’s decision that the aid was compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows for aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy.

Structure and Main Provisions

The judgment is structured into several key parts:

1. Background: Details of the aid measure and its notification to the Commission, including a recapitalization plan for Finnair and its previous state guarantee.
2. Action Before the General Court: Ryanair’s challenge to the Commission’s decision, claiming infringement of EU law principles and procedural rights.
3. Court’s Analysis: The Court examines Ryanair’s grounds of appeal, including claims of misapplication of the Temporary Framework, discrimination, proportionality, and procedural breaches.
4. Conclusion: The Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the compatibility of the aid with the internal market and addressing costs.

Key Provisions for Use

The judgment emphasizes several important legal principles:

• Article 107(3)(b) TFEU: This provision permits state aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy. The Court clarified that aid need not resolve the disturbance entirely on its own but must contribute to remedying it.
• Temporary Framework for State Aid: The Court discussed the Commission’s flexibility in applying the Temporary Framework during exceptional circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing deviations when justified by specific features of the aid measure.
• Non-discrimination and Proportionality: The Court found that individual aid inherently involves selective treatment but is permissible under Article 107 TFEU if it meets the conditions laid out in the treaty.
• Procedural Fairness: The Court confirmed that the Commission’s decision was adequately reasoned and did not breach procedural rights.

This judgment is significant for its interpretation of state aid rules during economic crises and clarifies the application of non-discrimination and proportionality principles in the context of individual aid measures.