1. Forced Labor Products Ban
The EU introduces a comprehensive ban on products made with forced labor, prohibiting their placement on the EU market or export. The regulation creates a risk-based investigation system, requires Member States to establish competent authorities, and mandates product withdrawal if forced labor is found. Economic operators must provide information during investigations, and a database of forced labor risks will be created.
2. Agricultural De Minimis Aid
The EU increases the ceiling for de minimis aid in agriculture from €20,000 to €50,000 per undertaking over three years. National caps are set at 2% of agricultural output. Member States must establish central registers by 2027, and monitoring is simplified by removing sector cap requirements.
3. Safety Gate System Rules
New detailed rules for the EU’s Safety Gate Rapid Alert System establish five types of notifications for dangerous products and a four-level risk classification system. The regulation standardizes notification procedures, sets information requirements, and provides risk assessment methodology for consistent system operation across the EU.
4. Urban Wastewater Treatment
A new directive expands wastewater treatment requirements to smaller communities and introduces quaternary treatment for micropollutants. It requires energy neutrality for treatment plants, establishes extended producer responsibility for pharmaceutical companies, and sets new monitoring obligations. The directive covers agglomerations above 1,000 population equivalent.
5. ESG Rating Providers Regulation
The regulation establishes authorization requirements for ESG rating providers, mandating separation of environmental, social, and governance ratings. Providers must disclose methodologies and data sources, manage conflicts of interest, and obtain ESMA authorization. Special provisions apply for small providers and third-country operators.
6. Economic Activities Classification Update
The NACE classification system is updated to NACE Rev. 2.1, reflecting changes from digitalization and globalization. It introduces new categories for digital activities and maintains a two-level classification system with broad sectors and detailed breakdowns. The update becomes applicable from January 2025.
7. Products Classification Update
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (Text with EEA relevance)
Essence of the Act:
This Regulation prohibits products made with forced labor from being placed on the EU market or exported from the EU. It establishes a comprehensive framework for investigating suspected cases of forced labor in supply chains, enforcing the prohibition, and requiring the withdrawal of non-compliant products. The regulation aims to improve the functioning of the internal market while contributing to the global fight against forced labor.Structure and Main Provisions:
The Regulation consists of six chapters covering:- General provisions including scope and definitions- Governance framework establishing a Union Network Against Forced Labour Products- Investigation procedures for suspected violations- Decision-making process for confirmed violations- Enforcement mechanisms including customs controls- Final provisions on penalties and evaluationKey Provisions:– Creates a risk-based approach to identifying and investigating products potentially made with forced labor- Establishes competent authorities in each Member State to investigate cases- Requires economic operators to provide information during investigations- Mandates withdrawal and disposal of products found to be made with forced labor- Sets up customs controls to prevent entry/exit of prohibited products- Creates a database of forced labor risks and a single information submission portal- Provides special support measures for SMEs- Requires Member States to establish penalties for non-compliance- Establishes international cooperation mechanisms- Protects whistleblowers who report violationsThe Regulation will fully apply from December 14, 2027, with some provisions taking effect from December 13, 2024. It creates a comprehensive system combining investigation, enforcement and international cooperation to eliminate forced labor products from the EU market.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3118 of 10 December 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector
This Regulation amends the EU rules on de minimis aid in the agriculture sector, which is aid considered too small to distort competition. The key change is increasing the ceiling of such aid from EUR 20,000 to EUR 50,000 per single undertaking over any 3-year period. The national caps for total de minimis aid are also adjusted to 2% of agricultural output.The Regulation introduces several important structural changes: it extends the validity period until December 31, 2032, requires Member States to set up central registers for de minimis aid by January 1, 2027, and simplifies monitoring by removing sector cap requirements. The calculation period for national caps is updated to use data from 2012-2023.Key provisions include:
– New EUR 50,000 ceiling per undertaking over 3 years
– Mandatory central registers at national or EU level from 2027
– Simplified monitoring and reduced administrative burden
– Updated calculation method for national caps based on agricultural output
– New rules for loans and guarantees aligned with higher ceilings
– Specific provisions for data protection and transparency
– Special provisions for Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3173 of 27 August 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/988 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules on access to and operation of the Safety Gate Rapid Alert System, information to be entered in that System, notification requirements and the criteria for assessment of the level of risk
This Commission Delegated Regulation supplements Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety by establishing detailed rules for the Safety Gate Rapid Alert System – the EU’s system for rapid exchange of information about dangerous non-food products. The regulation sets requirements for notifications about dangerous products, criteria for risk assessment, and rules for system operation.The regulation consists of 3 articles and 2 detailed annexes. Annex I provides comprehensive rules on different types of notifications, required information, validation procedures, and system operation. Annex II establishes criteria and methodology for assessing product risks, including a 4-level classification of harm severity and probability assessment.Key provisions include:
- Five types of notifications: serious risk, other risk, information notifications, follow-up notifications, and Commission alerts
- Detailed requirements for information that must be included in notifications (product details, risk description, traceability info, etc.)
- Specific criteria for assessing health/safety risks and other public interest risks
- Four-level classification system for harm severity (from minor to life-threatening)
- Methodology for calculating risk probability and determining overall risk level
- Cases where serious risk can be presumed without individual assessment
The regulation aims to ensure consistent and effective operation of the Safety Gate system across EU member states through standardized notification procedures and risk assessment criteria. It applies from December 13, 2024.
Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (recast) (Text with EEA relevance)
This is a comprehensive new EU Directive on urban wastewater treatment that replaces the previous Directive 91/271/EEC. The main purpose is to protect the environment and human health from adverse effects of urban wastewater discharges while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in the sector.The Directive establishes a complex regulatory framework covering:
- Requirements for collection and treatment of urban wastewater in agglomerations above 1,000 population equivalent (p.e.)
- Introduction of quaternary treatment to remove micropollutants from wastewater
- Extended producer responsibility for pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies
- Energy neutrality requirements for treatment plants
- Monitoring and reporting obligations
Key new provisions compared to the previous directive include:
- Expanded scope to include smaller agglomerations (1,000-2,000 p.e.)
- Stricter requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus removal
- New quaternary treatment requirements for micropollutants
- Requirements for energy neutrality of treatment plants
- Extended producer responsibility scheme for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics
- Enhanced monitoring and reporting obligations
- Requirements for integrated urban wastewater management plans
- Provisions on access to sanitation
The most important provisions that operators need to comply with are:
- Collection system requirements for agglomerations >1,000 p.e.
- Secondary treatment requirements for all discharges from agglomerations >1,000 p.e.
- Tertiary treatment requirements for plants >150,000 p.e. and sensitive areas
- Quaternary treatment requirements for large plants and sensitive areas
- Energy neutrality targets to be achieved progressively by 2045
- Enhanced monitoring and reporting of various parameters
- Development of integrated management plans for larger agglomerations
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3141 of 11 December 2024 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds
This Regulation amends the rules for importing poultry, poultry products and game birds from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States into the European Union due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in these countries. The changes affect specific geographical zones where HPAI cases were detected.The act modifies two annexes of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404: Annex V concerning poultry and germinal products, and Annex XIV regarding fresh meat of poultry and game birds. It adds new restricted zones in all three countries and updates existing restrictions based on the current epidemiological situation.The main provisions include:
– Suspension of imports from newly affected zones in British Columbia and Manitoba (Canada), Norfolk (UK), and multiple states in the US including California, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah
– Reauthorization of imports from previously restricted zones in Saskatchewan (Canada) and Utah (US) where appropriate control measures were implemented
– Establishment of 10km restriction zones around affected establishments
– Implementation of urgent measures to prevent disease spread while avoiding unnecessary trade disruption
Regulation (EU) 2024/3005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on the transparency and integrity of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating activities, and amending Regulations (EU) 2019/2088 and (EU) 2023/2859 (Text with EEA relevance)
Essence of the act:
This Regulation introduces a comprehensive framework for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating activities in the EU. It establishes requirements for ESG rating providers’ authorization, transparency, and operational integrity. The act aims to enhance the quality and reliability of ESG ratings while preventing greenwashing and ensuring investor protection.Structure and main provisions:
The Regulation consists of five titles covering:- Subject matter, scope, and definitions- Requirements for ESG rating providers to operate in the EU- Integrity and reliability requirements- Delegation and implementing acts- Transitional and final provisionsKey changes include:- Mandatory authorization by ESMA for ESG rating providers- Separation of E, S, and G ratings with clear disclosure of methodologies- Strict conflict of interest management requirements- New transparency obligations regarding data sources and methodologies- Special regime for small ESG rating providersMost important provisions:1. ESG rating providers must obtain ESMA authorization to operate in the EU2. Rating methodologies must be rigorous, systematic, and transparent3. Providers must separate environmental, social, and governance ratings rather than providing only aggregated ratings4. Providers must disclose their methodologies, data sources, and potential conflicts of interest5. Providers cannot combine ESG ratings with certain other activities like consulting or credit ratings6. ESMA has extensive supervisory and enforcement powers, including the ability to impose fines7. Third-country providers must comply with equivalence, endorsement, or recognition requirements to operate in the EU
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3104 of 2 September 2024 amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards references to the statistical classification of economic activities NACE established by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Delegated Regulation amends the statistical classification system NACE, which is used for categorizing economic activities in the European Union. The regulation updates the existing classification system to reflect changes brought about by globalization and digitalization in the way economic activities provide goods and services worldwide.The regulation introduces NACE Rev. 2.1, which replaces NACE Rev. 2 that has been in use since 2008. The main change is the modification of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 184/2005, specifically Table 8, which contains the detailed economic activity breakdown levels.The new classification system maintains a similar level of detail (granularity) as the previous version but introduces updated categories and descriptions that better reflect modern economic activities. Key changes include new sections for ‘Publishing, Broadcasting, and Content Production and Distribution Activities’ and ‘Telecommunication, Computer Programming, Consulting, Computing Infrastructure and Other Information Service Activities’.The regulation introduces a two-level classification system where Level 1 provides broad economic sectors (such as Agriculture, Manufacturing, Services) and Level 2 offers more detailed breakdowns within these sectors. Each activity is assigned specific division codes for clear categorization. For example, the manufacturing sector is broken down into detailed subsectors like food products (div 10, 11, 12), textiles (div 13, 14), and various other manufacturing activities.The regulation will become applicable from January 1, 2025, giving Member States and data providers time to adapt to the new requirements. The classification includes comprehensive coverage of all economic sectors from primary industries through to services, with particular attention to modern service sectors like digital technologies and information services.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3148 of 11 December 2024 amending for the 344th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
This Commission Implementing Regulation is the 344th amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which imposes restrictive measures against persons and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organizations. The regulation updates the information about three individuals in the sanctions list.The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 introduces amendments to Annex I of the basic Regulation 881/2002, while Article 2 establishes immediate entry into force. The Annex contains detailed amendments to the identifying data of three persons: Muthanna Harith Al-Dari, Maysar Ali Musa Abdallah Al-Juburi, and Salim Mustafa Muhammad Al-Mansur.The main changes in the regulation include:
- Updated personal information and aliases for all three individuals
- Addition of Arabic script versions of names
- New information about current status (e.g., death of Maysar Ali Musa Abdallah Al-Juburi on April 2, 2024)
- Updated details about detention status (Salim Mustafa Muhammad Al-Mansur is reported to be in detention and sentenced to death)
- Additional identification details such as parents’ names and physical descriptions
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3102 of 2 September 2024 amending Regulation (EC) No 138/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards references to the statistical classification of economic activities NACE established by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Delegated Regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 138/2004 on economic accounts for agriculture to align it with the updated statistical classification of economic activities (NACE Rev. 2.1). The amendment is necessary due to changes in the way economic activities provide goods and services worldwide, driven by globalization and digitalization.The regulation consists of two main articles and an annex. Article 1 introduces amendments to Annex I of Regulation 138/2004, while Article 2 sets the entry into force and application dates. The regulation will apply from January 1, 2028, for data transmissions relating to reference periods starting from that date.The key changes introduced by this regulation include:
- Replacing all references to ‘NACE Rev. 2’ with ‘NACE’ throughout Annex I
- Updating definitions related to local kind-of-activity units (local KAU)
- Modifying provisions regarding animal husbandry and hunting activities classification
- Updating references to the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA)
The regulation maintains similar granularity to the original classification, ensuring that the amendments do not impose significant additional burden on Member States or respondents. The deferred application date allows data providers sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements while maintaining consistency with international standards for classifying economic activities.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3103 of 2 September 2024 amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards updating the classification of products by activity (CPA)
This act updates the Classification of Products by Activity (CPA) in the European Union, establishing a new version called CPA Ver. 2.2. The update aims to maintain statistical standards for collection and publication of data across the EU internal market.The regulation introduces changes to reflect current economic realities, including new products and services emerging from technological developments, digitalization, and environmental activities. It ensures consistency with the EU’s statistical classification of economic activities (NACE) and international Central Product Classification (CPC).The structure of the act consists of 4 articles and an extensive annex containing the detailed classification system. The main changes include updates to reflect new economic activities, emerging goods and services, and alignment with international standards.
Key provisions:
- Establishes a detailed hierarchical structure of products classification from sections (letters A-V) down to specific product categories
- Introduces new categories for digital economy products, environmental goods/services, and other emerging areas
- Sets implementation dates: January 1, 2025 for most data transmissions, with extended timeline until September 2029 for certain national accounts data
- Provides comprehensive product descriptions and explanatory notes to ensure uniform interpretation
- Maintains linkages to other statistical classification systems used internationally
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.CN v Nemzeti Földügyi Központ.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to property – Right of usufruct over agricultural land – National legislation extinguishing, without compensation, the rights of usufruct – Judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Reinstatement in the land register of a previously deleted right of usufruct, without examination of the lawfulness of the original registration – Finality of the original registration.Case C-419/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding rights of usufruct over agricultural land in Hungary and has direct implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians. Here are the key points: Essence of the Act:
The Court ruled on whether EU law allows Hungary to reinstate previously cancelled rights of usufruct over agricultural land, even when the original registration was contrary to national law. The case involved a German resident’s property rights in Hungary and the reinstatement of a third party’s usufruct rights that were previously cancelled. Structure and Main Provisions:
– The judgment examines whether reinstating cancelled usufruct rights violates EU free movement of capital rules and property rights
– It analyzes whether such reinstatement is justified and proportionate under EU law
– The Court found that reinstating usufruct rights is permissible even if the original registration violated national law, as long as the contract creating those rights was legal when made Key Provisions:
– Member States must restore rights that were cancelled in violation of EU law
– Property rights acquired through illegal cancellation of usufruct rights are not considered ‘lawfully acquired’ under EU law
– National authorities can choose to disregard past registration irregularities when reinstating cancelled rights
– The principle of legal certainty supports reinstating definitive registrations even if originally unlawful
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Nemea Bank plc v European Central Bank.Appeal – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the European Central Bank (ECB) – Article 24 – Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation – Administrative review procedure – Decision repealing an earlier decision – Action for annulment – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings – Actions for damages – Manifest inadmissibility.Case C-181/22 P.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.DD v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.Appeal – Civil service – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union – Members of the temporary staff – Disciplinary proceedings – Administrative investigation – Concept of ‘plagiarism’ – Appointment by the appointing authority of an investigator with whom it has a business relationship – Conflict of interest – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Objective impartiality – Article 17a – Official’s freedom of expression – Articles 11, 12 and 21 – Respect for the principles of loyalty and impartiality.Case C-680/22 P.
This judgment concerns an appeal in a civil service case regarding disciplinary proceedings against a temporary staff member of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The key aspects are: The case involved disciplinary sanctions imposed on a staff member (DD) for presenting a document largely copied from other sources as his own work without proper attribution. FRA imposed the sanction of removal from post. The main legal issues examined were: the concept of plagiarism in the context of Staff Regulations obligations, requirements for initiating administrative investigations, rights of defense and impartiality in disciplinary proceedings, and limitations on freedom of expression of EU staff members. Key provisions analyzed include Articles 11, 12, 17a and 21 of the EU Staff Regulations regarding staff obligations of loyalty, appropriate conduct and assistance to superiors, as well as freedom of expression rights. The judgment also examines procedural requirements under Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on disciplinary proceedings. The Court rejected all grounds of appeal and upheld the removal from post, finding that presenting others’ work as one’s own violated staff obligations and that proper procedures were followed in the disciplinary proceedings. The judgment clarifies standards for staff conduct and disciplinary procedures in EU institutions.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.DD v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.Appeal – Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Disciplinary proceedings – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Annex IX – Article 3 – Compliance with the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal and of the General Court of the European Union – Annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority – Discretion – Obligation to resume the proceedings at the very point at which the illegality occurred – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Article 29 – Compensation for the harm suffered.Case C-587/21 P.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Dranken Van Eetvelde NV v Belgische Staat.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 205 – Joint and several liability for tax debts owed by a third party – Conditions and scope of liability – Fight against VAT fraud – Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT which does not allow an assessment to be made on the basis of the contribution of each taxable person in the tax evasion – Principle of proportionality – Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle non bis in idem – Criteria for application – Facts relating to different tax years against which administrative or criminal proceedings are brought – Continuing offence with unity of purpose – Facts not identical.Case C-331/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU VAT legislation regarding joint and several liability for tax debts and the principle of non bis in idem (double jeopardy). The key points are:Essence of the act:
The Court of Justice ruled on questions regarding joint and several liability for VAT fraud, the right to deduct VAT, and the application of double jeopardy principles in tax fraud cases spanning multiple years. The case involved a Belgian beverage company that was subject to both administrative and criminal proceedings for VAT fraud.Structure and main provisions:
The judgment addresses three main questions:- Whether strict joint and several liability for VAT fraud is permissible under EU law- Whether the right to deduct VAT applies in cases of joint and several liability- Whether penalties can be imposed for similar fraud occurring in different tax yearsKey provisions:
1. Joint and several liability for VAT fraud is allowed if the taxable person knew or should have known about the fraud, but they must have the opportunity to prove they took reasonable precautions2. A person jointly liable for VAT cannot benefit from the fraudulent party’s right to deduct VAT3. The principle of non bis in idem does not prevent imposing both administrative and criminal penalties for similar fraud occurring in different tax years, as these are considered different facts
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Belgische Staat / Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Volvo Group Belgium NV.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Direct taxation – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Tax on company profits – National legislation establishing a fairness tax – National decision annulling that legislation – Maintenance of effects – Tax not payable by a non-resident company with a permanent establishment in the Member State – Tax payable by a subsidiary of a non-resident company – Choice of legal form – Comparability of situations.Case C-436/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding taxation of company profits and freedom of establishment in relation to Belgium’s ‘fairness tax’ system.The case examines whether Belgium’s tax system discriminates between subsidiaries of foreign companies and permanent establishments/branches of foreign companies operating in Belgium. The fairness tax applies to subsidiaries but not to permanent establishments.The Court analyzed whether this different treatment violates EU freedom of establishment principles under Article 49 TFEU.
Key provisions:
- The fairness tax is imposed on resident subsidiaries of non-resident companies on distributed profits that were not included in final taxable profits due to tax advantages
- Non-resident companies with permanent establishments in Belgium are not subject to this tax
- The tax rate is 5% of the calculated taxable amount
- Small companies are exempt from the charge
Main conclusions:
- The Court found that subsidiaries and permanent establishments are not in comparable situations in this case
- Since Belgium chose not to tax permanent establishments, there is no discrimination under EU law
- Therefore, the Belgian fairness tax system does not violate EU freedom of establishment principles
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Rada Nadzorcza Getin Noble Bank S.A. and Others v Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Recovery and resolution of credit institutions – Directive 2014/59/EU – Decision to take a crisis management measure in respect of a credit institution – Article 85(3) – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective remedy of all persons affected by that decision – Compliance with a reasonable time limit – Requirement of an expeditious judicial review – Provision of national law requiring that all the actions be joined – Article 3(3) – Combining of functions by the resolution authority – Guarantee of operational independence.Case C-118/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU legislation regarding resolution procedures for credit institutions, specifically in relation to a case involving Getin Noble Bank in Poland. Here are the key points:Essence of the act:
The Court of Justice of the EU ruled on several questions regarding judicial review of bank resolution decisions, the right to effective remedy, and requirements for operational independence of resolution authorities. The judgment clarifies how national courts should handle multiple legal challenges to bank resolution decisions while ensuring timely judicial review.Main structure and provisions:
- The Court addressed four key questions regarding:
- Requirements for expeditious judicial review when handling multiple legal challenges
- Whether reviewing one lead case can satisfy effective remedy requirements for all challengers
- Requirements for structural separation when resolution authorities perform multiple functions
- Whether organizational measures can substitute for formal written rules on independence
- The judgment establishes that national courts:
- Must ensure timely review even if it means not joining all related cases
- Cannot deny other challengers their day in court by only reviewing one lead case
- Must ensure resolution authorities maintain operational independence when performing multiple functions
Key provisions for implementation:
- National courts must prioritize expeditious review over procedural rules requiring case joinder
- Resolution authorities need adequate structural arrangements to ensure independence when performing multiple functions
- Organizational measures can satisfy independence requirements if properly documented and implemented
- Non-publication of internal rules does not automatically invalidate resolution decisions but shifts burden of proof to authorities
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.NB v Kutxabank, SA.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Mortgage loan agreement – Term providing for a variable interest rate – Reference index based on the annual percentage rates of charge (APRC) of mortgage loans granted by savings banks – Official index established by a published administrative act – Information contained in the preamble to that act – Check relating to the requirement of transparency – Assessment of the unfair nature of the term – Principle of effectiveness.Case C-300/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU consumer protection law regarding unfair terms in mortgage loan agreements, specifically related to variable interest rates based on reference indices.The essence of the judgment is that it sets standards for transparency and fairness of mortgage loan terms that use official reference indices for calculating variable interest rates. The Court ruled on when such terms can be considered transparent and fair, and what consequences follow if they are found unfair.The main provisions of the judgment include:
- Requirements for transparency of loan terms using reference indices – lenders must ensure consumers can understand how the rate is calculated and its economic impact
- Standards for assessing unfairness of such terms – must consider all circumstances including transparency failures and market comparisons
- Rules on consequences if terms are found unfair – courts can substitute statutory provisions but cannot revise unfair terms
- Limitations on lenders’ rights to interest if loan agreement is voided due to unfair terms
The most important provisions for practical application are:
- Lenders must provide complete information about reference indices and warnings about their features, not just rely on official publications
- Using an official index does not automatically make a term fair – courts must assess actual impact on consumers
- If terms are unfair, lenders cannot claim statutory interest from date loan was issued
- Courts cannot modify unfair terms but can substitute statutory provisions in some cases
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.M. sp. z o.o. I. SKA v R. W.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2011/7/EU – Combating late payment in commercial transactions – Transactions between undertakings – Commercial lease agreement – Point 8 of Article 2 – Concept of ‘amount due’ – Re-invoicing of rental charges and costs associated with the rent.Case C-725/23.
This judgment interprets Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions, specifically focusing on the concept of ‘amount due’ in commercial lease agreements.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarifies that the concept of ‘amount due’ under Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/7/EU includes not only the main rental payment but also additional costs and charges that the tenant has agreed to pay under the lease agreement.The judgment’s structure consists of three main parts: the legal framework of Directive 2011/7/EU, the facts of the specific case involving a commercial lease dispute in Poland, and the Court’s interpretation of the relevant provisions.Key provisions of the judgment include:
- The definition of ‘amount due’ covers both the principal payment and additional costs connected with contract performance
- Commercial lease agreements qualify as commercial transactions under the Directive
- The Directive aims to protect creditors by ensuring full compensation for recovery costs
- The broad interpretation of ‘amount due’ includes utilities, service charges, and other contractually agreed costs
The Court emphasizes that limiting the concept of ‘amount due’ only to main rental payments would undermine the Directive’s objective of combating late payments in commercial transactions and protecting creditors from adverse financial effects of late payments.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Weatherford Atlas Gip SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor and Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 168 – Right to deduct VAT – Purchase of administrative services provided within the same group of companies – Refusal of the right of deduction.Case C-527/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU VAT legislation regarding the right to deduct VAT on administrative services purchased within a group of companies. The case involves a Romanian company that was denied VAT deduction by tax authorities on services received from other group companies.The Court of Justice analyzed Articles 2 and 168 of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC which regulate VAT deduction rights. The key provisions establish that a taxable person has the right to deduct VAT paid on goods and services used for taxed transactions.The main provisions state that:
- The right to deduct VAT is a fundamental principle of the EU VAT system and should not be limited
- VAT deduction requires a direct link between input services and taxed output transactions
- Services must be used by the taxable person for its own business activities
- The fact that services are provided simultaneously to multiple group companies does not automatically preclude VAT deduction
- Economic necessity or appropriateness of purchased services is not relevant for VAT deduction rights
The Court ruled that tax authorities cannot deny VAT deduction just because services were provided to multiple group companies or were deemed unnecessary, as long as the services were used for taxed business activities. The taxable person must prove the services were used for its own transactions.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Golden Omega, SA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 1516 – Fats and oils and their fractions – Fish oil in the form of ethyl esters – Esterification of fatty acids with ethanol – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 – Validity.Case C-388/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU customs tariff classification for fish oil products, specifically whether fish oil in the form of ethyl esters should be classified under heading 1516 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN).The case arose from a dispute between Golden Omega S.A. and Dutch tax authorities regarding the proper tariff classification of a fish oil product called ‘Fish Oil EE 1050’. The key question was whether this product should be classified under CN heading 1516 (with 10.9% duty) or under heading 2106 (with 12.8% duty).The Court ruled that heading 1516 of the CN does not cover fish oil in the form of ethyl esters obtained by esterification of fatty acids with ethanol. The key findings were:
- Fats and oils under heading 1516 must consist mainly of esters of glycerol and fatty acids (triglycerides)
- Products consisting mainly of ethyl esters (synthetic esters from ethanol and fatty acids) cannot be classified under heading 1516
- The chemical processes of inter-esterification and re-esterification under heading 1516 must still result in triglycerides
The Court also confirmed the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/1661 which classified such products under CN heading 2106.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.DD v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.Appeal – Civil service – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union – Members of the temporary staff – Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period – Notice period – Maintenance of the duty of loyalty and of confidentiality – Disciplinary proceedings – Initiation of an administrative inquiry – Closure of the case without further action – Unlawful conduct attributable to the appointing authority – Non-material damage – Proof – Conditions necessary for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability.Case C-130/22 P.
This judgment concerns an appeal in a civil service case regarding the termination of an EU temporary staff member’s contract and subsequent administrative inquiry. The key aspects are: 1. The case involves a dispute between DD (appellant) and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) regarding an administrative inquiry initiated after DD allegedly shared confidential FRA documents during his notice period after contract termination. 2. The main legal issues addressed include: the applicability of staff obligations during notice period, requirements for administrative inquiries, duty to state reasons for closing inquiries, and conditions for compensation for non-material damage. The Court clarified several important procedural aspects regarding staff rights and administrative procedures. 3. The Court found that the General Court erred in law on two key points: (1) by holding that a decision closing an administrative inquiry without further action was not an act adversely affecting the staff member, and (2) by requiring specific evidence of non-material damage in cases where such damage could be presumed from the nature of the unlawful conduct. The case was partially referred back to the General Court for re-examination of these aspects.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Malmö Motorrenovering AB v Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 250 – Temporary admission procedure – Article 251 – Period during which goods imported under that procedure may remain – Period insufficient for achieving the objective of authorised use – Customs debt incurred through non-compliance with that period – Conditions for extending that period – Importation of a racing car.Case C-781/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 251 of the EU Customs Code regarding temporary admission procedures for non-EU goods. The case specifically deals with the conditions for extending the period during which goods can remain under temporary admission.The judgment clarifies three key aspects of the temporary admission procedure:
- The customs authorities must determine an initial period for goods to remain under temporary admission, which must be sufficient to achieve the authorized use
- The maximum standard period is 24 months
- Extensions beyond the initially granted period are possible without proving ‘exceptional circumstances’ as long as the total period doesn’t exceed 24 months
The Court’s main conclusion is that ‘exceptional circumstances’ are only required when requesting an extension that would make the total period exceed 24 months. For shorter extensions within the 24-month limit, no exceptional circumstances need to be proven.The judgment also addresses the extinction of customs debt in cases where time limits are exceeded. If the failure to comply with deadlines had no significant effect on the procedure and there was no attempt at deception, the customs debt may be extinguished if proper formalities are subsequently completed.
