Review of the EU legislation for 17/01/2025

Based on the provided legal acts, here is a comprehensive review of their content:
Fisheries Closures:
Multiple regulations establish fishing closures for different species and areas:
– Belgian vessels banned from fishing plaice in areas 7h, 7j, 7k
– Spanish vessels prohibited from catching undulate ray in zone 9
– Irish vessels restricted from haddock fishing in waters 6b, 12 and 14
– French vessels banned from red seabream fishing in areas 6, 7 and 8
All closures start from mid-December 2024 due to quota exhaustion.
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties:
Two major trade defense measures were implemented:
– Definitive duties on Chinese pneumatic tyres ranging from 0 to 35.74 EUR per tyre
– Duties on Chinese erythritol ranging from 34.4% to 233.3%
– Countervailing duties on Chinese tyres from 3.75 to 57.28 euros per item
Quota Deductions:
A regulation establishes deductions from 2024 fishing quotas for Member States that exceeded their previous allocations, with special provisions for Germany allowing deductions spread over 2024-2026.
Court Judgments:
Several important interpretations were provided regarding:
– Consumer protection in financial markets
– Rights in criminal trials conducted in absentia
– Taxation of Erasmus+ mobility support
– Air passenger rights regarding free and reduced fares
– Technical specifications in public procurement
– Customs procedures in free zones
– Recovery of unlawful state aid
Emergency Measures:
EFTA established control zones around an avian influenza outbreak in Norway, with protection (3km) and surveillance (10km) zones lasting until December 2024.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/95 of 13 January 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for plaice in areas 7h, 7j and 7k for vessels flying the flag of Belgium

This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for plaice in specific areas of EU waters (7h, 7j and 7k) for Belgian vessels due to quota exhaustion. The regulation implements fishing restrictions after Belgium has reached its allocated fishing quota for plaice in these areas for 2024.The regulation consists of three main articles that outline the quota exhaustion declaration, specific prohibitions, and entry into force provisions. It includes an annex specifying the exact details of the closure, including the affected species, areas, and closing date.Key provisions include:
– Complete prohibition of targeted fishing for plaice by Belgian vessels in the specified areas from December 19, 2024
– Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
– Requirement to record and count unintended catches against quotas
– Authorization to handle (transship, retain, process) fish caught before the closure date
– Obligation to bring and retain on board any unintended catches of plaice, which must be recorded and counted against quotas

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/90 of 10 January 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for undulate ray in Union waters of 9 for vessels flying the flag of Spain

This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for undulate ray (Raja undulata) in Union waters of zone 9 specifically for vessels flying the flag of Spain. The regulation is enacted because Spain has exhausted its allocated fishing quota for undulate ray in this area for 2024.The regulation consists of three main articles that outline the quota exhaustion declaration, specific prohibitions, and entry into force provisions. It includes an annex specifying the exact details of the closure including the species, zone, and closing date of December 19, 2024.Key provisions include:
– A complete prohibition on fishing for undulate ray by Spanish vessels in the specified zone
– A ban on searching for fish, shooting, setting, or hauling fishing gear for this species
– Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
– Requirement to record and count any unintended catches against quotas
– Authorization to retain and land unintended catches in accordance with existing regulations

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/58 of 15 January 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres from China, following an expiry review of previous measures. The duties apply to new or retreaded rubber tyres used for buses or lorries with a load index over 121.The regulation is structured in several main sections covering: procedural background, product scope and market segmentation, dumping analysis, injury analysis, causation analysis, and determination of duties. It includes detailed provisions on calculation methodologies, data sources, and company-specific duty rates.Key provisions include:- Individual duty rates ranging from 0 to 35.74 EUR per tyre for specific Chinese companies- A residual duty rate of 4.48 EUR per tyre for all other Chinese companies- Requirements for valid commercial invoices to apply individual duty rates- Provisions for adding new exporters and adjusting duties in case of damaged goods- Rules on the relationship with parallel countervailing dutiesThe main changes compared to previous measures include:- Confirmation of continuation of dumping with margins between 7-22%- Finding of material injury to EU industry with declining profitability and market share- Assessment of likelihood of recurrence of injury if measures lapsed- Updated company-specific duty rates based on new calculations- Additional provisions on monitoring and preventing circumventionThe regulation contains detailed provisions on:- Market segmentation into three tiers based on brand/quality- Methodology for constructing normal value using Turkey as analogue country- Analysis of Chinese market distortions affecting costs and prices- Injury indicators showing deterioration of EU industry situation- Verification of data from sampled producers and exporters- Rules for applying individual vs. country-wide duty rates

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/60 of 15 January 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of erythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China and levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of erythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of erythritol from China. The key aspects are:1. The regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 34.4% to 233.3% on imports of erythritol (in pure form or blends containing less than 10% of other products) originating from China.2. The structure includes detailed sections on the investigation procedure, dumping calculations, injury analysis, causation assessment, and determination of duty levels. The regulation also covers retroactive collection of provisional duties and registration of imports.3. Main provisions include:- Individual duty rates for specific Chinese companies ranging from 34.4% to 156.7%- A residual duty rate of 233.3% for all other Chinese imports- Requirements for valid commercial invoices to apply individual duty rates- Retroactive collection of provisional duties- Registration of imports and retroactive application of dutiesThe regulation aims to protect the EU industry from material injury caused by dumped Chinese imports, after finding significant price undercutting and injury to the sole EU producer. The measures include mechanisms to prevent circumvention and ensure proper enforcement of the duties.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/61 of 15 January 2025 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This regulation imposes definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres from China, both new and retreaded, used for buses or lorries with a load index exceeding 121.The regulation’s structure includes sections on: procedure and previous investigations, product definition and market segmentation, analysis of subsidization practices in China, injury assessment of the EU industry, causation analysis, and determination of duties.Key provisions include:

• Confirmation of continued subsidization by China through various schemes including preferential lending, export credit insurance, provision of inputs at less than market value, tax exemptions and reductions
• Individual countervailing duty rates ranging from 3.75 to 57.28 euros per item for different Chinese producers
• Requirements for valid commercial invoices to apply individual duty rates
• Measures to prevent circumvention through monitoring of export patterns
• Continuation of duties based on likelihood of continued subsidization and injury to EU industry if measures lapsed

The regulation maintains existing anti-subsidy measures while updating and clarifying their application based on findings of continued subsidization and injury risk to EU producers. It aims to ensure fair competition while considering interests of all stakeholders including EU manufacturers, importers and users.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/77 of 10 January 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for haddock in United Kingdom, Union and international waters of 6b; international waters 12 and 14 for vessels flying the flag of Ireland

This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for haddock in specific waters for vessels flying the flag of Ireland. The regulation is adopted due to the exhaustion of Ireland’s fishing quota for haddock in the designated areas for 2024. It implements specific prohibitions and restrictions on fishing activities in these waters.The regulation consists of three main articles and an annex. Article 1 declares the exhaustion of the Irish quota for haddock. Article 2 establishes specific prohibitions on fishing activities, while Article 3 deals with the entry into force. The Annex provides specific details about the closure, including the affected Member State, species, and geographical zones.Key provisions include:

• Complete prohibition of fishing for haddock by Irish vessels in the specified waters from December 19, 2024
• Ban on searching for fish, shooting, setting, or hauling fishing gear for haddock
• Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
• Requirement to record and count unintended catches against quotas
• The affected waters include United Kingdom, Union and international waters of 6b, and international waters 12 and 14

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/66 of 13 January 2025 operating deductions from fishing quotas available for certain stocks in 2024 on account of overfishing of other stocks in the previous years and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2407

This Commission Implementing Regulation establishes deductions from fishing quotas for certain EU Member States in 2024 due to overfishing in previous years. The regulation aims to ensure compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy rules by implementing penalties for exceeding allocated fishing quotas.The regulation consists of 3 articles and 2 annexes that detail specific deductions for different Member States and fish stocks. It amends the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2407 by updating and correcting certain deductions.The main provisions include:
– Deductions from alternative stocks when quotas for overfished species are not available
– Special provisions for Germany allowing spread of deductions over 3 years (2024-2026)
– Timeline adjustments for deductions related to stocks managed by regional fisheries organizations
– Corrections of previous technical errors in quota calculationsKey aspects for implementation:
– Detailed tables in annexes showing exact quantities to be deducted for each Member State and stock
– Specific rules for calculating deductions including multiplying factors for repeated overfishing
– Provisions for carrying forward deductions to subsequent years when current quotas are insufficient
– Consultation requirements with affected Member States when applying alternative stock deductions

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/76 of 10 January 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for red seabream in areas 6, 7 and 8 for vessels flying the flag of France

This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for red seabream in specific maritime areas for French vessels due to quota exhaustion. The regulation prohibits French vessels from fishing red seabream in areas 6, 7 and 8 starting from December 17, 2024, as France has exhausted its allocated fishing quota for 2024.The regulation consists of three main articles that outline the quota exhaustion declaration, specific prohibitions, and entry into force provisions. It includes an annex specifying the exact details of the closure, including the affected species, areas, and closing date.Key provisions include:
– Complete prohibition of searching for, shooting, setting, or hauling fishing gear for red seabream by French vessels
– Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
– Requirement to record and count unintended catches against quotas
– Obligation to bring and retain unintended catches on board in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Banco Santander SA, venant aux droits de Banco Banif SA v Asociación de Consumidores y Usuarios de Servicios Generales-Auge, en représentation de ses associés : Andrea y Alberto.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Markets in financial instruments – Directive 2004/39/EC – Article 52(2) – Action brought in the interests of consumers – Consumer organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers – Standing to bring legal proceedings to defend the individual interests of their members – Loss of standing in the case of investments in high-value financial products – Exemption from court fees and from the obligation to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party – Procedural autonomy – Principle of effectiveness.Case C-346/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 52(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments and consumer protection rights.The essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The Court ruled on whether consumer organizations can represent individual members in financial disputes regardless of the members’ wealth or investment amounts. It established that while Member States must allow consumer organizations to bring legal proceedings to protect consumer interests, they have discretion in configuring the procedural mechanisms. The judgment clarified that consumer organizations cannot be restricted from representing members based on their financial means or investment types, but criteria like wealth can be considered for legal aid eligibility.Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment analyzes whether Article 52(2) precludes national laws that restrict consumer organizations’ standing based on members’ wealth and investment types
– It examines the scope of “interests of consumers” under the Directive
– It addresses both procedural standing rights and legal aid eligibility
– Key changes: Clarifies that Member States cannot restrict organizations’ standing based on wealth/investment criteria, but can consider these for legal aidMost important provisions:
1. Consumer organizations must be allowed to represent all consumer-investors without discrimination based on wealth or investment types
2. Member States have discretion in configuring procedural mechanisms but cannot exclude certain consumers from representation
3. While standing cannot be restricted based on financial means, such criteria can be considered for legal aid eligibility
4. The ruling preserves individual consumers’ rights to bring actions and seek legal aid independently

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v VB.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Right to be present at the trial – Article 8(2) – Trial resulting in a decision imposing a conviction in absentia or a decision of acquittal in absentia – Conditions – Article 8(4) – Obligation to inform the person tried in absentia of the legal remedies available – Article 9 – Right to a new trial or to another legal remedy which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case and which may lead to the original decision being reversed – Article 10(1) – Right to an effective remedy – National legislation making the recognition of the right to a new trial subject to the submission of a request to reopen criminal proceedings to a judicial authority before which the person tried in absentia must appear.Case C-400/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2016/343 regarding the right to be present at criminal trials and rights of persons convicted in absentia. The key provisions analyzed are:1. The Court clarifies that when a person is convicted in absentia without meeting conditions in Article 8(2), Member States can require them to request a new trial from a different court than the one that convicted them, provided that:

• The proceedings must actually allow a new trial in all cases where Article 8(2) conditions were not met
• The person cannot be required to appear in person to request the new trial
• The convicted person must receive a full copy of the conviction decision and clear information about their right to request a new trial

2. The Court conducting an in absentia trial can itself examine whether Article 8(2) conditions are met and state in its decision that the person has a right to a new trial, after hearing both prosecution and defense counsel.3. These rights apply not only to convictions in absentia but also to acquittals in absentia.The judgment is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it establishes important procedural safeguards for criminal proceedings conducted in absentia, which has become more common due to the ongoing conflict. It provides clear guidance on how to protect defendants’ rights while allowing justice systems to function when accused persons are absent.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.E. P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21(1) TFEU – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Tax legislation – Income tax – Calculation of the amount of the basic personal allowance for a dependent child who has received mobility support for educational purposes in the context of the Erasmus+ programme – Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 – Taxation of grants to support the mobility of individuals covered by that regulation – Restriction on freedom of movement – Proportionality.Case C-277/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding taxation of Erasmus+ mobility support and its impact on tax benefits for parents of students participating in the program. Here are the key points:Essence of the act:
The Court ruled that EU member states cannot include Erasmus+ mobility support received by students when calculating their parents’ tax allowances in a way that reduces those allowances. Such practice violates EU citizens’ freedom of movement rights under Articles 20 and 21 TFEU.Structure and main provisions:
The judgment analyzes several key aspects:- The relationship between national tax competence and EU law requirements- The scope of EU citizens’ freedom of movement rights- The objectives of the Erasmus+ program- The proportionality of national tax measures affecting student mobilityKey provisions for practical use:
1. Member states cannot treat Erasmus+ mobility support as income that reduces parents’ tax benefits for dependent children2. Such tax treatment constitutes an unjustified restriction on freedom of movement3. Erasmus+ support is meant to cover additional costs of studying abroad and does not increase parents’ tax-paying capacity4. Both students and their taxpayer parents can rely on EU freedom of movement rights in challenging such tax measuresThe judgment is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it protects the rights of parents whose children participate in EU educational mobility programs and establishes important principles regarding taxation of EU program benefits.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.European Commission v Pollinis France.Appeal – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4(3), first subparagraph – Protection of the decision-making process – Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 – Committee procedure – Positions expressed by Member States and other Members of Committees – Refusal to grant access.Case C-726/22 P.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.NW and YS v Qatar Airways.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(3) – Travel free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public – Passenger who has paid only charges and air transport taxes – Reservation in the context of a promotional campaign – Article 8(1)(c) – Right to re-routing at a later date – No requirement of a temporal link between the cancelled flight and the re-routing flight desired by the passenger.Case C-516/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights in three key aspects:1. The Court clarified that a passenger does not travel ‘free of charge’ when they only pay taxes and charges but not the actual airfare. The payment of any amount, even if only taxes/charges, means it’s not free travel.2. Regarding reduced fares, the Court ruled that promotional fares offered to a broad professional group (like healthcare workers) still count as being ‘available to the public’, even if limited in time and quantity. Only fares requiring individual authorization or offered to specifically named persons would be considered not available to the public.3. On re-routing rights after flight cancellation, the Court determined there does not need to be any temporal connection between the cancelled flight and when the passenger requests re-routing. Passengers can request re-routing at their convenience subject only to seat availability, though national courts can set reasonable time limits for making such claims.The judgment strengthens passenger protections by:- Taking an inclusive view of what flights are covered by the regulation- Confirming broad re-routing rights that aren’t strictly time-limited- Emphasizing that even during extraordinary circumstances like COVID-19, airlines must still fulfill their re-routing obligations

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v IR.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 8 – Right to be present at the trial – Information regarding the holding of the trial and the consequences of non-appearance – Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities – Possibility of a trial and a decision in absentia – Article 9 – Right to a new trial or to another legal remedy which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case – No such right where the person concerned absconds.Case C-644/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU Directive 2016/343 regarding the right to be present at criminal trials and the right to a new trial for those convicted in absentia. The key points are:The judgment clarifies when Member States can try defendants in absentia and deny them the right to a new trial. Specifically:

• A person who absconds after receiving preliminary charges can be tried in absentia and denied a new trial only if specific conditions are met
• The authorities must make reasonable efforts to locate and inform the person of the trial
• The person must either be represented by a mandated lawyer OR have been informed that absconding could result in trial in their absence
• Simply receiving preliminary charges during investigation is not enough – the person must have sufficient information to know they will face trial

The Court emphasized that national courts must interpret their laws in compliance with the Directive’s requirements. If this is not possible, they must disapply any conflicting national provisions since relevant articles of the Directive have direct effect.The judgment provides detailed guidance to help national courts determine if their specific procedural rules comply with the Directive’s minimum standards for protecting defendants’ rights in absentia trials.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.DYKA Plastics NV v Fluvius System Operator CV.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Award of public works contracts – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 42 – Technical specifications – Formulation – Whether the list at Article 42(3) is exhaustive in nature – Invitation to tender requiring drainage work to be carried out using pipes made of vitrified clay and made of concrete – Plastic pipes excluded – Article 42(4) – Reference to a type or to a specific production – Situations in which a reference must be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’.Case C-424/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 42 of EU Directive 2014/24 on public procurement, specifically regarding technical specifications in public tenders.The Court ruled on several key aspects of technical specifications:1. The list of methods for formulating technical specifications in Article 42(3) is exhaustive, except where mandatory national technical rules apply or where Article 42(4) exceptions are relevant.2. Contracting authorities cannot specify required materials in technical specifications without adding ‘or equivalent’, unless use of a particular material inevitably follows from the contract’s subject matter with no possible alternatives.3. Technical specifications must ensure equal access and avoid unjustified obstacles to competition. Excluding certain products/companies through specifications that violate Article 42(3)-(4) automatically breaches these principles.The case arose from a dispute between DYKA Plastics and Fluvius System Operator regarding tender requirements that sewage pipes be made of vitrified clay or concrete, excluding plastic pipes. The Court provided guidance on how technical specifications must be formulated to ensure open competition while allowing contracting authorities to meet their legitimate needs.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.SIA ,,BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL” v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 – Free zones – Change of customs status of non-Union goods to Union goods – Records of the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone – Legitimate expectations – Res judicata.Case C-376/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU customs legislation regarding free zones and record-keeping obligations. The key aspects are:The case deals with the obligations of companies operating in free zones regarding record-keeping of goods and verification of their customs status. The Court analyzed whether companies must include specific reference numbers (MRNs) in their records when goods exit free zones and change customs status.The main provisions interpreted relate to the Union Customs Code and its implementing regulations regarding: record-keeping requirements in free zones, discharge of free zone procedures, and verification of customs status changes.The Court’s key findings include:

• Companies operating in free zones are not required to include MRNs in their records about discharge of free zone procedures
• Companies can rely on customs stamps/signatures on transport documents without additional verification
• Established customs practices can create legitimate expectations about record-keeping requirements
• National courts can be bound by final criminal court decisions regarding customs violations

The judgment provides important clarifications about practical aspects of operating in EU free zones, particularly regarding documentation requirements and the relationship between customs and criminal proceedings.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Flightright GmbH v Etihad Airways P.J.S.C.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 8(1)(a) – Right to reimbursement of the cost of the airline ticket in the event of cancellation of a flight – Choice between reimbursement in money or in travel vouchers – Article 7(3) – Concept of the ‘signed agreement of the passenger’ – Loyalty account set up by the passenger on the air carrier’s website.Case C-642/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of passenger rights under EU Regulation 261/2004 regarding flight cancellations and ticket reimbursement methods. The Court clarifies when an airline can reimburse passengers with travel vouchers instead of cash.The judgment consists of two main parts: first, analysis of the concept of ‘signed agreement’ for voucher reimbursement, and second, examination of whether creating a loyalty account constitutes such agreement. The Court did not address the second referred question about revoking agreement for vouchers due to its answer to the first question.The key provisions interpreted by the Court are Article 7(3) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 261/2004, which establish the framework for ticket reimbursement in case of flight cancellation. The regulation prioritizes cash reimbursement, while voucher reimbursement requires passenger’s signed agreement.The most important aspects of the judgment are:

• Cash reimbursement is the primary method, while vouchers are a subsidiary option requiring explicit passenger consent
• The ‘signed agreement’ doesn’t necessarily require a handwritten signature but must reflect passenger’s express, definitive and unequivocal acceptance
• Merely creating a loyalty account on airline’s website is not sufficient to constitute agreement for voucher reimbursement
• Airlines must provide clear and full information to ensure passengers can make an effective and informed choice between cash and voucher reimbursement

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 January 2025.Scai Srl v Regione Campania.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid – Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Article 16 – Beneficiary of individual aid identified in the European Commission recovery decision – Implementation of the recovery decision – Transfer of the aid to another undertaking after the recovery decision – Economic continuity – Assessment – Competent authority – Extension of the recovery obligation to the actual beneficiary – Audi alteram partem rule – Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Case C-588/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding recovery of unlawful state aid in cases where the aid beneficiary transfers its activities to another company after the recovery decision.The key points of the judgment are:1. When implementing a Commission decision ordering recovery of unlawful state aid, national authorities can order recovery from companies other than the one identified in the Commission’s decision, if there is economic continuity between the original beneficiary and the new company.2. Economic continuity is assessed based on factors like: assets transferred, workforce maintained, transfer price, ownership/shareholders, timing of transfer, and economic logic of the operation.3. National authorities must ensure the rights of defense of companies from whom they seek to recover aid, including the right to challenge recovery decisions before national courts.The judgment is important for Ukraine as it clarifies that:

• Recovery of unlawful state aid can be pursued from companies that continue the economic activity of the original beneficiary
• National authorities have powers to identify such companies when implementing EU recovery decisions
• Companies subject to recovery must have their procedural rights protected

This creates a framework for effective recovery of unlawful state aid that Ukraine may need to implement as part of its EU accession process.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision No 202/24/COL of 27 November 2024 concerning emergency measures in Norway in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza pursuant to Article 259(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 21, 39 and 55 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 [2025/79]

This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision establishes emergency measures in Norway due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in a private holding with 96 captive birds on Frøya island. The decision approves protection and surveillance zones around the outbreak area and sets specific timeframes for control measures.The act consists of 7 articles and an annex defining two types of zones:
– Protection zone: 3 kilometers radius around the outbreak location, with measures applicable until December 9, 2024
– Surveillance zone: 10 kilometers radius around the outbreak location, with measures applicable until December 18, 2024
The decision is based on EU Regulations 2016/429, 2018/1882, and 2020/687, adapted to the EEA Agreement.Key provisions include:
– Mandatory establishment and maintenance of protection and surveillance zones by Norwegian authorities
– Specific geographical coordinates for the zones’ centers (latitude 63.69999; longitude 8.81327)
– Clear timeframes for maintaining control measures in each zone
– Requirements for Norway to ensure compliance with zone restrictions and control measures
– Immediate entry into force due to epidemiological urgency