Review of the EU legislation for 29/11/2024

Let me provide a comprehensive review of these legal acts:

Regulations:

• A regulation modifying organic import controls introduces flexible sampling rates instead of mandatory 100% checks for high-risk products from third countries, while maintaining documentation requirements.
• A technical correction to REACH Regulation’s French version fixes concentration levels for certain substances in Annex XVII entries 68 and 73.
• A regulation on cherry and plum imports from the UK removes certain Prunus species from high-risk plants list and establishes new phytosanitary requirements including pest control measures and certification.
• A fisheries regulation establishes new restrictions in Baltic Sea protected areas, prohibiting bottom contacting gear and requiring vessel monitoring systems.
• A regulation on crypto-assets sets reporting requirements for asset-referenced and e-money tokens, including holder information, reserve assets, and transaction data.

Court Judgments:

• VAT ruling confirms that termination payments for partially completed services are subject to VAT when the provider was ready to complete work.
• Software jurisdiction case establishes that the place of performance is where customers access and use the software.
• Criminal proceedings judgments clarify rules on plea agreements requiring co-defendant consent and separate court review.
• Data protection rulings address:
  • Information provision exceptions for COVID-19 certificates
  • Police collection of biometric data requiring strict necessity assessment
• Electricity market judgment defines distribution systems based on voltage level and customer categories.
• Pension funds ruling classifies mutual insurance institutions as pension funds for statistical reporting.
• Trade secrets case establishes rules for confidentiality rings in competition proceedings.
• Financial supervision judgment clarifies professional secrecy obligations for market authorities.
• Emissions trading ruling determines that ETS obligations cannot be reduced through insolvency proceedings.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2975 of 25 September 2024 amending Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/1698 and (EU) 2021/2306 as regards the import into the Union of high-risk organic and in-conversion products

This Regulation amends the EU rules regarding the control of high-risk organic and in-conversion products imported from third countries. It introduces more flexible control mechanisms for high-risk products by allowing different sampling percentages instead of mandatory 100% checks. The regulation modifies two previous regulations: (EU) 2021/1698 and (EU) 2021/2306, which deal with controls on operators in third countries and official controls at border control posts respectively.The structure of the act consists of three main articles. Article 1 amends Regulation 2021/1698 by introducing new provisions for listing high-risk products and their countries of origin, along with specific sampling requirements. Article 2 modifies Regulation 2021/2306 regarding border control procedures. Article 3 establishes the entry into force provisions.Key provisions of the act include:
– Introduction of variable sampling rates for high-risk products instead of mandatory 100% checks
– Allowing different sampling percentages for controls in third countries versus EU Member States
– Maintaining documentation checks while making physical checks and sampling more flexible
– Creating a system where high-risk products are listed together with their countries of origin and specific control requirements
– Aiming to reduce control costs while maintaining effective oversight of organic imports

Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2929 of 27 November 2024 correcting the French language version of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the concentration levels of some substances

This Regulation is a technical correction to the French language version of Annex XVII to REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, specifically addressing errors in the concentration levels of certain substances. The corrections apply to entries 68 and 73 of Annex XVII, which were introduced by previous Commission Regulations (EU) 2019/957 and 2021/1297.The structure of the act is straightforward, containing two articles: Article 1 specifically addressing corrections to the French language version, and Article 2 establishing the entry into force of the regulation. The act does not introduce any new provisions but rather corrects technical errors in the existing French text.The main provisions that require attention are:

• The corrections only affect the French language version of the REACH Regulation
• The changes concern concentration levels of substances in entry 68 (points 2, 10, and 11) and entry 73 (points 1 and 4) of Annex XVII
• The regulation maintains the original intent of the provisions while correcting technical errors that affected their substance

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2931 of 27 November 2024 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as regards certain plants for planting of Prunus avium, Prunus canescens, Prunus cerasus, Prunus pseudocerasus and Prunus spinosa originating in the United Kingdom, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 as regards the phytosanitary measures for the introduction of those plants for planting into the Union

This Regulation amends the EU rules regarding the import of certain cherry and plum species from the United Kingdom. It removes specific types of Prunus plants (including cherry and blackthorn) from the list of high-risk plants and establishes new phytosanitary measures for their import into the EU. The changes are based on risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority.The Regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 modifies the list of high-risk plants by removing certain Prunus species. Article 2 introduces new phytosanitary requirements for importing these plants. The annexes provide detailed specifications of the amendments and the new import requirements.The key provisions include:

• Removal of specific Prunus plants from the high-risk plants list when originating from the UK
• Introduction of detailed requirements for official statements confirming freedom from specific pests (Colletotrichum aenigma and Eulecanium excrescens)
• Requirements for site production inspections and cleaning procedures
• Specific requirements for phytosanitary certificates, including mandatory additional declarations
• Size and age limitations for different types of plants (ranging from 12mm to 80mm in diameter)

The most significant aspects for implementation are the specific requirements for pest control and certification. Plants must be officially inspected and certified as free from specified pests, production sites must maintain strict hygiene protocols, and all shipments require detailed documentation including registered site specifications.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2943 of 17 September 2024 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/117 as regards fisheries conservation measures in the Baltic Sea areas of Fehmarnbelt, Kadetrinne, Westliche Rönnebank, Adlergrund and Pommersche Bucht mit Oderbank

This Delegated Regulation amends the existing fisheries conservation measures in certain protected areas of the Baltic Sea, specifically in the German Exclusive Economic Zone. The act establishes new restrictions on fishing activities to protect sandbanks and reef habitats in five Special Areas of Conservation: Fehmarnbelt, Kadetrinne, Westliche Rönnebank, Adlergrund and Pommersche Bucht mit Oderbank.The regulation’s structure includes:

• Definitions of mobile bottom contacting gear and restricted areas
• Prohibition of specific fishing activities in designated zones
• Transit rules for vessels carrying restricted gear
• Requirements for vessel monitoring systems and automatic identification systems
• Detailed geographical coordinates defining the protected areas

Key provisions include:

• Complete prohibition of mobile bottom contacting gears in certain areas to protect seabed structures
• Establishment of 4 nautical-mile alert zones around restricted areas
• Mandatory vessel monitoring systems for fishing vessels under 12 meters operating in restricted areas
• Increased frequency of position reporting (every 10 minutes) when vessels enter restricted zones
• Specific rules for transit through protected areas requiring fishing gear to be properly stowed

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902 of 20 November 2024 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to reporting related to asset-referenced tokens and to e-money tokens denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of a Member State

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation establishing technical standards for reporting requirements related to asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens under the EU’s crypto-assets regulation (MiCA).The regulation sets detailed rules for how issuers of asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens must report information about token holders, transactions, and reserve assets to competent authorities. It includes specific requirements for:

• Reporting on the number and location of token holders, including retail vs institutional breakdown
• Detailed reporting on the composition and value of reserve assets backing the tokens
• Transaction reporting requirements, including geographic distribution of transactions
• Data sharing between crypto-asset service providers and token issuers

The regulation contains extensive technical annexes with reporting templates and detailed instructions for filling them out. Key aspects include:

• Quarterly reporting cycles with specific reference and remittance dates
• Standardized data formats and validation rules
• Requirements for handling personal data of token holders
• Special provisions for e-money tokens in non-EU currencies

The regulation aims to ensure proper supervision of crypto-asset markets by providing authorities with standardized, detailed data about token issuance and trading activity. It will apply from January 1, 2025.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2024.rhtb: projekt gmbh v Parkring 14-16 Immobilienverwaltung GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 2(1)(c) – Scope – Taxable transactions – Contract for services for the carrying out of a building project – Termination of the contract by the customer – Concept of ‘remuneration’ – Characterisation – Obligation to pay the total amount agreed after deduction of the costs saved by the supplier – Article 73 – Taxable amount.Case C-622/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of VAT rules in cases where a customer terminates a service contract that has already begun. The Court analyzed whether the amount due after contract termination should be subject to VAT when the supplier was ready to complete the work but was prevented by the customer.The judgment clarifies that if a service provider has begun work under a valid contract and is ready to complete it, but the customer terminates the contract for reasons not attributable to the provider, the contractually due amount (minus saved costs) constitutes remuneration subject to VAT. This interpretation is based on the direct link between the service and consideration received, as the customer had the right to benefit from the contract’s fulfillment.The Court distinguished this case from situations involving deposits or compensation for losses. The key factors were that there was an identifiable service being provided, the work had already begun, and the amount due corresponded to the contractually agreed price minus saved costs rather than being fixed compensation for losses.

Main provisions:

• A supply of services is subject to VAT when there is a legal relationship with reciprocal performance and a direct link between service and consideration
• The consideration exists when the supplier places the customer in a position to benefit from the service, regardless of whether the customer uses this right
• Amounts due after contract termination are subject to VAT if they correspond to what would have been received for the full service, even if the service was not completed due to customer’s actions

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2024.VariusSystems digital solutions GmbH v GR Inhaberin B & G.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Claim in matters relating to a contract – Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) – Contract for the provision of services – Software developed in one Member State and adapted to the needs of a customer residing in another Member State – Place of performance.Case C-526/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, specifically regarding contracts for software development and operation. The Court had to determine where the ‘place of performance’ is located when software is developed in one EU country but used by a customer in another.The judgment is structured around the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, which establishes rules for determining which court has jurisdiction in cases involving contracts for services between parties from different EU Member States. The Court analyzed whether the place of performance should be where the software was created or where it is used.The key provisions established by the Court are:

• For software development contracts, the main obligation that characterizes the contract is making the software available to the customer, not its design and programming
• The place of performance is where the customer accesses, consults and uses the software
• If software is used in multiple locations, the place of performance is at the customer’s domicile or registered office
• This interpretation applies regardless of whether the software must comply with specific national legal requirements

The Court emphasized that this interpretation supports legal certainty by providing clear, predictable rules for determining jurisdiction, while ensuring a close connection between the dispute and the court hearing the case.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2024.PT v Spetsializirana prokuratura.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Criminal offences and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking and the fight against organised crime – Possibility to reduce applicable penalties – Scope – Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA – Articles 4 and 5 – Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA – Articles 3 and 4 – National legislation not implementing EU law – Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Criminal proceedings against several persons – Agreement for settlement of the case provided for in national law – Approval by an ad hoc court – Consent of the other defendants.Case C-432/22.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding criminal proceedings and plea agreements in cases involving multiple defendants. The key points are:1. The case deals with criminal proceedings in Bulgaria where one defendant wanted to enter into a plea agreement during trial, but national law required consent from all other co-defendants and review by a separate court.2. The Court analyzed whether these requirements were compatible with EU law, particularly regarding effective judicial protection under Article 19(1) TEU. The main structural elements examined were:

• The requirement for a separate court to review plea agreements
• The need for consent from all co-defendants
• The implications for judicial impartiality and fair trial rights

3. The Court’s key findings were:

• Having a separate court review plea agreements is permissible to ensure impartiality
• Requiring consent from all co-defendants is allowed to protect their defense rights
• These requirements do not violate EU principles of effective judicial protection

The judgment is important for Ukraine as it deals with organized crime and drug trafficking cases, which are relevant areas of criminal law cooperation between the EU and Ukraine. It also establishes principles for handling plea agreements in complex criminal cases with multiple defendants.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2024.Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v PT.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Criminal offences and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking and the fight against organised crime – Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA – Articles 4 and 5 – Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA – Articles 3 and 4 – National legislation not implementing EU law – Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 1 and 6 – Right of a person to be informed of the charges against him or her – Effective judicial protection – First paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Criminal proceedings against several persons – Agreement for settlement of the case entered into by one of the defendants and the public prosecutor – Consent of the other defendants.Case C-398/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding agreements for settlement of criminal cases between prosecutors and defendants. The key points are:The case deals with whether EU law precludes national legislation that requires consent from all co-defendants for approval of a settlement agreement made during trial phase, while not requiring such consent during pre-trial phase.The Court analyzed three main aspects:

• Framework Decisions on drug trafficking and organized crime penalties do not govern procedural rules about settlement agreements, so the Court lacks jurisdiction on those questions
• The right to information about criminal charges under Directive 2012/13 is not violated by requiring co-defendant consent for settlement agreements during trial
• National rules requiring co-defendant consent for settlement agreements during trial phase are compatible with EU law on right to information in criminal proceedings

The Court concluded that EU law does not preclude national legislation requiring consent from other defendants for approval of settlement agreements made during trial phase only. The requirement for such consent does not violate defendants’ rights to information about charges against them under EU law.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2024.Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság v UC.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Data processed when drawing up a COVID-19 certificate – Data not collected from the data subject – Information to be provided – Exception to the obligation to provide information – Article 14(5)(c) – Data generated by the controller in the context of its own processes – Right to complain – Competence of the supervisory authority – Article 77(1) – Appropriate measures to protect the data subject’s legitimate interests provided for by the Member State law to which the controller is subject – Measures relating to the security of data processing – Article 32.Case C-169/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the processing of personal data when issuing COVID-19 immunity certificates.The key points of the judgment are:1. The exception to the controller’s obligation to provide information to data subjects (under Article 14(5)(c) GDPR) applies to all personal data not collected directly from the data subject, including both data obtained from other sources and data generated by the controller itself.2. When handling complaints, data protection authorities can verify whether national laws provide appropriate measures to protect data subjects’ interests when applying this exception. The verification should ensure the law guarantees at least equivalent protection to what Article 14 GDPR would provide.3. However, when verifying compliance with Article 14(5)(c), authorities do not need to check the technical security measures required under Article 32 GDPR, as these are separate obligations.The judgment is particularly relevant for public authorities processing personal data for COVID-19 certificates and similar documents, clarifying their obligations regarding information provision and data subject rights.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2024.Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost v V.S.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive (EU) 2016/680 – Article 4(1)(a) to (c) – Article 8(1) and (2) – Article 10 – Accused person – Police record containing biometric and genetic data – Enforcement – Objectives of prevention and detection of criminal offences – Interpretation of the judgment of 26 January 2023, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police) (C‑205/21, EU:C:2023:49) – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law – Assessment of whether it is ‘strictly necessary’ for the competent authorities to process sensitive data – Role of the competent authorities.Case C-80/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU data protection rules regarding collection of biometric and genetic data by police authorities. The key points are:1. The case deals with whether police can systematically collect biometric and genetic data (fingerprints, photos, DNA) from accused persons and enter it into police records without demonstrating strict necessity.2. The Court ruled that national legislation allowing systematic collection of such sensitive data without requiring authorities to verify and demonstrate that collection is “strictly necessary” violates EU data protection law (Directive 2016/680).3. The key provisions analyzed are:

• Article 10 of Directive 2016/680 which requires processing of biometric/genetic data to be “strictly necessary”
• Articles 4 and 8 on lawful processing and necessity requirements
• Article 3(7) defining competent authorities

4. The Court emphasized that:

• The requirement of “strict necessity” establishes stronger conditions compared to general “necessity” requirements
• Police authorities must themselves verify and demonstrate strict necessity – this cannot be delegated to courts
• Systematic collection without case-by-case assessment violates EU law

5. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot remedy the lack of strict necessity assessment by police authorities – the obligation lies with the authorities collecting the data to demonstrate necessity in each case.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2024.ENGIE Deutschland GmbH v Landesregulierungsbehörde beim Sächsischen Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market for electricity – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Points 28 and 29 of Article 2 – Concept of ‘distribution’ – Concept of ‘distribution system operator’ – Concept of ‘distribution system’ – Articles 30 to 39 – Distribution system operation – Undertaking operating an energy facility comprising a combined heat and power plant and an electric wiring system, supplying heat, hot water and electricity to the tenants of a residential complex – Simultaneous sale of the electricity generated – National legislation exempting the operator of such a facility from the obligations of distribution system operators under that directive.Case C-293/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU electricity market rules, specifically regarding the concept of electricity distribution systems and their operators. The Court analyzes whether an energy facility that supplies electricity to residential buildings can be excluded from being classified as a distribution system under EU law. The key elements examined are the definition of ‘distribution system’ and ‘distribution system operator’ under Directive 2019/944. The main provisions establish that:

• A distribution system is defined solely based on two criteria: the voltage level of transported electricity and the category of customers it serves
• Member States cannot exclude facilities from being classified as distribution systems based on additional criteria like size, ownership, or method of electricity generation
• Operators of such systems must comply with all obligations under EU law unless they qualify for specific exemptions explicitly provided in the Directive

The Court ruled that national legislation cannot exempt an energy facility operator from distribution system operator obligations if the facility transports electricity at any voltage level for sale to customers, unless it qualifies for explicit exemptions under EU law. This interpretation aims to ensure integrated, competitive and consumer-centered electricity markets across the EU.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2024.Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE v European Commission.Appeal – Common commercial policy – Protection against subsidised imports from third countries – Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization (WTO) – Articles 1 and 2 – Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 – Articles 2 to 4 – Concepts of ‘subsidy’, ‘government’, ‘specificity’ and ‘benefit’ – Financial contributions granted by Chinese public bodies to undertakings incorporated under Egyptian law owned by Chinese entities established in the China-Egypt Suez Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone – Possibility of classifying such financial contributions as subsidies granted by the Government of Egypt, having regard to that government’s own conduct – Whether permissible – Conditions – Financial contribution consisting in forgoing government revenue that is otherwise due – Benefit conferred on the recipient undertakings – Choice of the relevant reference situation for the purpose of characterising the existence of that financial contribution and that benefit – Articles 5 and 6 – Calculation of the benefit – Concepts of ‘recipient’ and ‘undertaking’.Case C-269/23 P.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2024.Bayerische Ärzteversorgung and Others v Deutsche Bundesbank.References for a preliminary ruling – Economic and monetary policy – European system of national and regional accounts – Statistical reporting requirements applicable to pension funds – Special pension schemes for the professions – Compulsory membership and contributions.Case C-758/22.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU regulations regarding statistical reporting requirements for pension funds. The key points are: The case examines whether certain German mutual insurance institutions that provide retirement, death and disability benefits should be classified as ‘pension funds’ under EU regulations and therefore be subject to statistical reporting requirements. The Court established that mutual insurance institutions are considered pension funds and subject to reporting requirements if they have these characteristics:

• They offer benefits covering retirement, death and disability risks
• They have management autonomy and keep complete accounts
• Most members are legally required to join due to their profession, and services are generally limited to those professions
• Benefit levels depend on contributions paid and asset management performance, without government guarantees

The judgment clarifies that even if pension funds have restricted membership and compulsory participation requirements, they can still be classified as ‘market producers’ and financial corporations under EU accounting rules, rather than as social security schemes. This classification determines their statistical reporting obligations to central banks.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2024.BG Technik cs, a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Classification of goods – Tariff heading 8703 – Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons – Tariff heading 8713 – Carriages for disabled persons – Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 – SELVO 4800 vehicle – Concept of ‘disabled persons’.Case C-129/23.

Judgment of the court of 9 August 2024 in Case E-11/23 – Låssenteret AS v Assa Abloy Opening Solutions Norway AS (Directive (EU) 2016/943 – Rules on evidence and disclosure of confidential information – Confidentiality rings – Trade secrets – Private enforcement of competition law – Weighing-up of interests – Article 5 of Directive 2014/104/EU)

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU legislation regarding the protection of trade secrets and their disclosure in court proceedings, particularly in competition law cases. The case involves Låssenteret AS and Assa Abloy Opening Solutions Norway AS, where questions arose about confidentiality rings and access to trade secrets during legal proceedings.The Court’s judgment consists of six key points addressing different aspects of trade secret protection and disclosure. The structure follows a logical progression from the scope of Directive 2016/943 to specific issues of confidentiality rings and the weighing of parties’ interests in competition law cases.The main provisions established by this judgment are:

• Directive 2016/943 only covers unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets, not their protection in other court proceedings
• National courts can establish confidentiality rings that don’t necessarily include representatives from all parties
• Courts must balance protected interests on a case-by-case basis when deciding on disclosure
• The competitive sensitivity of information doesn’t affect the application of these principles
• In cases involving abuse of dominant position, courts must weigh parties’ interests while ensuring EEA law effectiveness
• There’s no obligation to interpret national law in light of Article 5 of Directive 2014/104 if it’s not incorporated into EEA Agreement

Judgment of the Court of 9 August 2024 in Case E-10/23 – X v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Directive 2013/36/EU – Article 53 – Obligation of professional secrecy – Effective judicial protection – Surveillance and Court Agreement – Article 34 SCA – Jurisdiction in advisory opinion cases)

This judgment of the Court concerns the interpretation of professional secrecy obligations under Directive 2013/36/EU, particularly focusing on Article 53, in the context of financial market supervision. The case arose from a dispute between X and the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) regarding the handling of confidential information.The judgment consists of four key rulings that clarify the Court’s jurisdiction and the interpretation of professional secrecy requirements. The Court affirms its competence to provide advisory opinions under Article 34 of the EFTA Agreement, even when similar questions have been previously addressed by national courts.The most significant provisions of the judgment relate to the definition and handling of confidential information under Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU. The Court establishes that confidential information includes all non-public information held by competent authorities where disclosure could adversely affect either the information provider, third parties, or the proper functioning of financial institution monitoring systems.The Court specifies that exceptions to professional secrecy obligations are strictly limited to those explicitly listed in Article 53. However, these confidentiality requirements must be balanced against fundamental EEA law principles, including effective judicial protection, defense rights, and protection against disproportionate public authority intervention. This creates a framework for authorities to maintain confidentiality while respecting fundamental legal rights.

Judgment of the court of 9 August 2024 in Case E-12/23 – Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (Directive 2003/87/EC – Article 12(2a) – Obligation to surrender emission allowances – National insolvency law – Emissions trading system (ETS) – Greenhouse gases – Climate change)

This judgment of the Court of Justice concerns the interpretation of EU emissions trading system (ETS) legislation in relation to national insolvency laws. The case involves Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA and the Norwegian State regarding the obligation to surrender emission allowances under Directive 2003/87/EC. The judgment specifically addresses Article 12(2a) of Directive 2003/87/EC, which establishes the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union. The Court had to determine whether national insolvency legislation could affect the obligation to surrender emissions allowances. The Court’s key ruling states that the obligation to surrender emissions allowances under the EU ETS Directive cannot be settled through dividend payments in a compulsory debt settlement during company restructuring proceedings. This means that even in cases of insolvency, companies must fully comply with their emissions allowance obligations and cannot treat them as regular debts that can be reduced through insolvency proceedings. The most significant aspects of this judgment are:

• The confirmation that ETS obligations take precedence over national insolvency procedures
• The clarification that emission allowance surrender obligations cannot be treated as regular financial debts
• The reinforcement of the environmental integrity of the EU ETS system by ensuring that companies cannot use insolvency to avoid their environmental obligations