Review of the EU legislation for 24/01/2025

Here’s a concise review of the most significant legal acts from the provided list:

Aviation Safety Updates

The regulation extends airworthiness requirements to cover electric and hybrid-powered aircraft, introducing new definitions and training requirements for maintenance personnel. The changes include modified license requirements and updated documentation for new aircraft types, effective from February 2026.

E-Bikes Trade Measures

Two regulations impose anti-dumping duties (9.9% to 70.1%) and countervailing duties (3.9% to 17.2%) on electric bicycles from China. The measures include specific rates for individual manufacturers and requirements for valid commercial invoices.

Dangerous Goods Transport

The directive updates EU regulations for inland transport of dangerous goods, modifying international agreements for road (ADR), rail (RID), and inland waterways (ADN). Member States have until June 30, 2025, to implement the changes.

Agricultural Products Promotion

The regulation modifies rules for promoting agricultural products in the EU and third countries. It introduces lump sum payments alongside cost reimbursement, strengthens conflict of interest prevention, and simplifies administrative procedures.

Plant Protection Products

Three separate regulations approve low-risk active substances for plant protection:
– Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477
– Betabaculovirus phoperculellae
– Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301
All approvals are valid from February 2025 to February 2040, with specific safety and quality control requirements.

Geographical Indications

Three regulations register new geographical indications:
– ‘Valais/Wallis’ for Swiss wines
– ‘Jidvei’ as a Protected Designation of Origin
– ‘Silifke Yoğurdu’ as a Protected Geographical Indication

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/111 of 23 January 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 as regards continuing airworthiness for electric- and hybrid-propulsion aircraft and other non-conventional aircraft

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 regarding continuing airworthiness requirements for electric and hybrid-propulsion aircraft and other non-conventional aircraft. Key aspects:The regulation addresses regulatory gaps by:

• Extending requirements to cover electric and hybrid power plants in addition to traditional piston and turbine engines
• Creating provisions for non-conventional aircraft that don’t fit existing aircraft categories
• Modifying the definition of complex motor-powered aircraft to be more proportionate for simple tilt-rotors

Main changes include:

• New definitions for aeroplane, rotorcraft, helicopter and non-conventional aircraft
• Modified requirements for aircraft maintenance licenses to include electric propulsion
• Updated training requirements and knowledge modules for maintenance personnel working on electric/hybrid aircraft
• Revised experience requirements for license extensions to new categories
• Changes to forms and documentation to accommodate new aircraft types

The regulation aims to ensure appropriate continuing airworthiness oversight while facilitating the introduction of new aircraft technologies, particularly electric propulsion. It will apply from February 13, 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/120 of 23 January 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of electric bicycles, 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 electric bicycles (e-bikes) from China following an expiry review. The duties range from 9.9% to 70.1% and aim to protect the EU e-bike industry from unfairly priced Chinese imports.The Regulation’s structure includes sections on procedure, product definition, dumping analysis, injury assessment, likelihood of recurrence of injury, Union interest analysis, and final measures. The key changes compared to previous measures are the confirmation of existing duty rates and extension of measures following review.Key provisions include:

• Detailed duty rates for specific Chinese manufacturers ranging from 9.9% to 70.1%
• Requirements for valid commercial invoices to apply individual duty rates
• Provisions for new Chinese exporters to request individual duty rates
• Relationship between anti-dumping and countervailing duties
• Detailed product scope covering e-bikes with pedal assistance and auxiliary electric motor
• Provisions for monitoring and preventing circumvention

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/139 of 16 January 2025 granting protection in the Union to the Appellation of Origin Valais / Wallis registered in the International Register of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications of the Geneva Act

This Commission Implementing Regulation grants protection in the European Union to the Appellation of Origin ‘Valais / Wallis’ for wine products from Switzerland. The protection is granted following Switzerland’s application through the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications, and the subsequent registration in the International Register.The Regulation consists of two main articles. Article 1 establishes protection for the name ‘Valais / Wallis’ as an Appellation of Origin in the EU and specifies that it applies to wine products. Article 2 sets the standard entry into force provision (twentieth day following publication).The key provisions include:
– The protection is granted following notification from the World Intellectual Property Organization on March 14, 2024
– The name was published in the EU Official Journal to allow for possible oppositions
– No oppositions were received during the opposition period
– The application met all conditions required under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1753
– The protection applies to the entire European Union territory

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025/149 of 15 November 2024 amending the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to take into account scientific and technical progress

This Directive amends the existing regulations on the inland transport of dangerous goods within the European Union, updating them to reflect the latest scientific and technical developments. It modifies three key international agreements covering the transport of dangerous goods by road (ADR), rail (RID), and inland waterways (ADN).The Directive’s structure is straightforward, containing four main articles that outline the amendments, transposition requirements, entry into force, and addressees. The amendments specifically update Annexes I, II, and III of Directive 2008/68/EC, replacing previous versions with new provisions that take effect from January 1, 2025.The key provisions include:
– Implementation of updated international agreements for dangerous goods transport across all three modes (road, rail, and inland waterways)
– A transitional period until June 30, 2025, for Member States to implement the necessary changes
– Replacement of terms ‘contracting party’ and ‘RID Contracting State’ with ‘Member State’ in all relevant contexts
– Requirement for Member States to communicate their implementing measures to the Commission
– Mandatory reference to this Directive in national implementing legislation

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/164 of 23 January 2025 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special control measures for African swine fever

This regulation amends Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 regarding special control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The regulation updates the restricted zones I, II and III in various EU member states where ASF control measures are applied. The main changes include: – New outbreaks of ASF in wild boars in Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia, as well as a new outbreak in kept pigs in Italy, leading to changes in zone designations The regulation contains detailed lists of municipalities and regions that are designated as restricted zones I, II or III in the following countries:

• Germany
• Estonia
• Latvia
• Hungary
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Italy
• Czech Republic
• Greece
• Croatia

The restrictions and control measures vary by zone designation, with zone III having the strictest controls. The zoning is based on the epidemiological situation, risk assessments, and scientific criteria for geographically defining areas affected by ASF.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/70 of 21 November 2024 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products

This Regulation amends the rules for information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products in the EU and third countries. It simplifies administrative procedures, strengthens conflict of interest prevention, and introduces new funding calculation methods through lump sums alongside the existing cost reimbursement system.The act modifies Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 in three main areas:

• Changes to organization eligibility criteria and program support conditions
• Enhanced conflict of interest prevention measures
• Introduction of lump sum payments as an alternative to cost reimbursement

Key provisions include:

• Removal of additional representativeness requirements for agri-food sector bodies that already have public service missions
• Limitation of support to maximum two programs for the same product/scheme in the same target area
• New mandatory conflict of interest prevention measures during program preparation and implementation
• Introduction of lump sum payment options with specific calculation methods
• Requirement for organizations to inform Member States about measures taken to ensure best value for money in implementing bodies selection

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/114 of 23 January 2025 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles 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 is a Commission Implementing Regulation imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of electric bicycles (e-bikes) from China following an expiry review. The regulation maintains existing countervailing duties ranging from 3.9% to 17.2% on Chinese e-bikes.The regulation’s structure includes:

• Background and procedural aspects of the investigation
• Analysis of continued subsidization by China
• Assessment of injury to EU industry
• Evaluation of likelihood of recurrence of injury
• Analysis of Union interest
• Specific duty rates for individual companies

Key provisions include:

• Confirmation that Chinese e-bike producers continue to benefit from various government subsidies including preferential financing, tax benefits, and provision of inputs at below market prices
• Finding that EU industry recovered from past injury but remains economically fragile
• Conclusion that removing duties would likely lead to recurrence of injury due to China’s significant spare production capacity and low export prices
• Individual duty rates ranging from 3.9% to 17.2% for specific companies, with a 17.2% rate applying to all other Chinese producers
• Requirements for valid commercial invoices to qualify for individual duty rates

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/116 of 16 January 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Jidvei (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Regulation registers the geographical indication ‘Jidvei’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the EU register of geographical indications. The registration follows Romania’s application and ensures legal protection of this designation at the EU level.The act consists of two main articles: Article 1 establishes the registration of ‘Jidvei’ as a PDO in the Union register, while Article 2 sets the standard entry into force provision (twentieth day following publication). The regulation is based on the new framework Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 on geographical indications.The key aspects of this regulation are:

• The application was originally submitted by Romania under the previous Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
• No opposition was received during the prescribed period under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143
• The registration provides full EU-wide protection for the geographical indication ‘Jidvei’
• The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all EU Member States

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/106 of 22 January 2025 approving the active substance Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

This Commission Implementing Regulation approves Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 as a low-risk active substance for use in plant protection products within the European Union. The approval is valid from February 12, 2025, until February 12, 2040, and sets specific conditions for its use and implementation.The regulation consists of three main articles and two annexes. Article 1 approves the active substance, Article 2 amends the existing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 to include this new substance, and Article 3 establishes the entry into force. Annex I details the specific provisions and conditions for the substance’s use, while Annex II adds the substance to the list of approved active substances.Key provisions include:

• The substance is classified as low-risk as it has not demonstrated multiple resistance to anti-microbials used in human or veterinary medicine
• Special attention must be paid to operator and worker protection, as microorganisms are considered potential sensitizers
• Strict environmental conditions and quality control during manufacturing must be maintained
• Adequate personal protective equipment must be used
• Member States must ensure adherence to microbiological contamination limits as per OECD standards

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/103 of 22 January 2025 approving the active substance Betabaculovirus phoperculellae as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

This Regulation approves Betabaculovirus phoperculellae (formerly known as Phthorimaea operculella granulovirus) as a low-risk active substance for use in plant protection products. The approval is valid from February 12, 2025, to February 12, 2040. The substance belongs to the Baculoviridae family and has been confirmed to have no adverse effects on non-target insects.The Regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 approves the active substance, Article 2 amends the list of approved substances in Regulation 540/2011, and Article 3 sets the entry into force. Annex I specifies the conditions for approval, while Annex II adds the substance to the list of approved active substances in Part D of Regulation 540/2011.Key provisions include specific requirements for:

• Protection of operators and workers through mandatory personal protective equipment due to potential sensitizing properties of microorganisms
• Strict maintenance of environmental conditions and quality control during manufacturing
• Adherence to microbiological contamination limits as per OECD standards
• Implementation of risk mitigation measures where necessary

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/112 of 16 January 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Silifke Yoğurdu (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation registers the geographical indication ‘Silifke Yoğurdu’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the European Union register of geographical indications. The registration was requested by the Silifke Chamber of Commerce and Industry from Türkiye.The regulation consists of two articles: Article 1 establishes the registration of ‘Silifke Yoğurdu’ as a PGI, while Article 2 sets the entry into force of the regulation on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.The registration process followed the standard procedure where the application was first published in the Official Journal of the EU, and no opposition was received during the designated period. The registration was processed under the new Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks, and agricultural products.The key provision of this regulation is the formal recognition and protection of ‘Silifke Yoğurdu’ as a geographical indication within the EU market. This means that only yogurt produced in the Silifke region according to specified requirements can be marketed under this name in the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/109 of 22 January 2025 approving the active substance Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301 as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

This Commission Implementing Regulation approves Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301 as a low-risk active substance for use in plant protection products within the European Union. The approval is valid from February 12, 2025, until February 12, 2040, and sets specific conditions for its use and manufacturing.The regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 approves the active substance, Article 2 amends the list of approved substances in Regulation 540/2011, and Article 3 sets the entry into force. Annex I details the specific provisions for approval, while Annex II adds the substance to the official list of approved active substances.Key provisions include:
– Confirmation that Bacillus velezensis RTI301 meets safety criteria and qualifies as a low-risk substance
– Special attention must be paid to operator and worker protection due to potential sensitizing properties
– Strict requirements for manufacturing process quality control and environmental conditions
– Mandatory use of adequate personal protective equipment
– Need for adherence to microbiological contamination limits as per OECD standards

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2025.E. V. G.-T. v P. T. and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – European Certificate of Succession – Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 – Article 67(1) – Decisions taken by the issuing authority – No exercise of a judicial function – Inadmissibility.Case C-187/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 regarding European Certificates of Succession. The key points are:1. The case deals with whether challenges raised during the procedure for issuing a European Certificate of Succession prevent its issuance, and whether the issuing authority can examine such challenges.2. The Court analyzed Article 67(1) of the Regulation and concluded that:

• Any challenge raised during the certificate issuance procedure prevents the certificate from being issued
• The issuing authority does not have power to examine and rule on such challenges
• Only challenges that were finally rejected in other court proceedings do not prevent certificate issuance

3. The Court emphasized that the European Certificate of Succession must maintain high reliability since it produces legal effects across all EU member states. Therefore, it can only be issued when there are no challenges to the elements being certified.The Court ultimately ruled the request inadmissible because in issuing European Certificates of Succession, courts do not exercise judicial functions and therefore cannot make preliminary ruling references to the ECJ under Article 267 TFEU.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 January 2025.A. B. and F. B. v Slovenská sporiteľňa, a.s.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Requirements relating to information to be included in such a credit agreement – Duty to provide information – Duration of the agreement – Annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) – Assumptions used in order to calculate the APRC.Case C-677/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2008/48/EC on consumer credit agreements, specifically regarding requirements for information that must be included in such agreements. The key points are:Essence of the act:
The Court of Justice ruled on how credit agreements must specify their duration and assumptions used to calculate the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC). The judgment clarifies requirements for transparency and consumer protection in credit agreements.Structure and main provisions:
The judgment addresses two main questions:1. Whether a credit agreement must explicitly state its duration or if it’s sufficient that consumers can determine it from other terms2. Whether assumptions used to calculate the APRC must be explicitly stated or if consumers can deduce them from the agreementKey provisions:
– Credit agreements need not explicitly state their duration if terms allow consumers to determine it without difficulty and with certainty- Assumptions used to calculate the APRC must be explicitly stated in the agreement – it’s not enough for consumers to deduce them from examining terms- The obligation to include APRC assumptions is vitally important for consumer protection and verification of correct calculations- Failure to include required APRC information may result in creditors forfeiting entitlement to interest and charges

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2025.Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Unfair commercial practices – Directive 2005/29/EC – Article 7 – Misleading omissions – Invitation to purchase – Material information – Information to be provided to the consumer on the manner in which the price is calculated – Online electricity supply offer – Tariff calculator – Indication of a percentage increase in the price applicable to the consumer.Case C-518/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive regarding misleading omissions in commercial communications, specifically in the context of online electricity supply offers.The case deals with whether an electricity supplier must include specific percentage information about a ‘compensatory amount’ component in their online tariff calculator to allow consumers to independently calculate their final price.The Court ruled that when advertising electricity supply offers online, suppliers do not need to provide the exact percentage of variable components like compensatory amounts that would allow consumers to independently calculate the final price. However, they must indicate that such percentages apply in principle and provide information about possible ranges and factors affecting the percentage.

Key provisions:

• The manner of price calculation must be disclosed if the final price cannot be reasonably calculated in advance
• Information about price components must be clear and not misleading
• The extent of required information depends on the communication medium used
• Price calculation information can be provided through ranges, conditional percentages, or fixed percentages with variation notices
• Information can be provided through clearly visible links to terms and conditions, as long as consumers must confirm reviewing them

Main implications:

• Traders must provide sufficient information for consumers to make informed decisions
• The information does not need to enable exact price calculations by consumers
• Information requirements must be proportional and consider practical limitations
• Multiple communication channels can be used to provide required information

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2025.European Parliament v Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA and Others.Appeal – Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – More than one defendant in the proceedings at first instance – Judgment in default against one of those defendants which is the subject of an application before the General Court of the European Union to have it set aside – Admissibility of the appeal brought against that judgment – Conditions – Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Admissibility of the response to an appeal submitted by a party against which an order was made by default at first instance – Article 172 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Cross-appeal brought by a party against which an order was made by default and which has made an application to set aside to the General Court – Article 176(1) and Article 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility – Arbitration clause – Article 272 TFEU – Insurance contract concluded by the European Parliament – Exclusion clause in respect of damage relating directly or indirectly to flooding – Scope.Case C-766/21 P.

This judgment concerns an appeal against a decision of the General Court regarding an insurance dispute between the European Parliament and several insurance companies over flood damage to a building under construction.The key aspects of the judgment are:

• The case involved interpretation of an insurance contract exclusion clause for flood damage
• The Court addressed important procedural issues regarding admissibility of appeals when there are multiple defendants and a default judgment against one of them
• The Court confirmed that when a default judgment is subject to an application to set it aside, that portion cannot be appealed until the set-aside proceedings are complete

The main provisions include:

• Confirmation that appeals against non-default portions of a judgment are admissible even if other parts are subject to set-aside proceedings
• Clarification that insurance contract exclusion clauses should be interpreted based on the common intention of the parties rather than automatically being interpreted strictly
• Ruling that ‘flooding’ in an insurance contract can cover accumulation of rainwater and is not limited only to natural disasters or overflowing watercourses

The Court ultimately dismissed both the main appeal by the Parliament and the cross-appeal by one of the insurance companies, confirming the General Court’s interpretation of the insurance contract’s flood exclusion clause.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2025.Neos SpA v European Commission.Appeal – State aid – Aid scheme – Measures intended to support airlines holding a national operating licence in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – Decision by the European Commission not to raise any objections – Obligation to state reasons.Case C-490/23 P.

This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning an appeal against a General Court decision that had annulled a European Commission state aid decision regarding an Italian compensation scheme for airlines during COVID-19. The case involved an appeal by Neos SpA against a General Court judgment that had annulled a Commission decision approving Italian state aid to airlines with Italian operating licenses. The aid scheme included a minimum remuneration requirement for airline employees based in Italy. The key issue was whether the Commission had adequately explained its reasoning regarding the minimum remuneration requirement in its decision. The CJEU found that the General Court erred in law by concluding the Commission’s statement of reasons was insufficient.

Main provisions:

• The CJEU clarified the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons in state aid decisions, noting that succinct reasoning can be sufficient for decisions not to raise objections
• The Commission was not required to provide detailed reasoning about why it examined the minimum wage requirement under certain EU law provisions but not others
• The CJEU set aside the General Court’s judgment and referred the case back for examination of other pleas that had not been addressed

Key changes/structure:

• The judgment overturns the General Court’s finding of insufficient reasoning by the Commission
• It provides important clarification on the required level of detail in Commission state aid decisions
• The case is referred back to the General Court to examine other aspects of the challenge to the aid scheme

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 January 2025.Ministère public and Office National de Sécurité Sociale (ONSS) v EX.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Migrant workers – Social security – Applicable legislation – Posted workers – Documents in the form of A1 certificates allegedly issued by the institution competent to issue those certificates – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 76(6) – Obligation of the authorities of the host Member State to initiate a dialogue and conciliation procedure for the purpose of determining whether fraud has occurred.Case C-421/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU social security coordination rules in cases of suspected fraud with A1 certificates for posted workers. The key points are:The essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The Court ruled on whether EU social security coordination rules apply when false A1 certificates are used for posted workers, and whether a mandatory dialogue procedure between Member States is required before establishing fraud. The case involved a Portuguese contractor who posted workers to Belgium using allegedly false A1 certificates. The Court confirmed that EU rules apply even when certificates are found to be false, and that dialogue between Member States’ institutions is mandatory before courts can make final determinations about fraud.Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses three key questions about application of Regulation 883/2004 to cases with false A1 certificates
– It confirms that EU social security coordination rules apply even when certificates are proven false
– It establishes that the dialogue and conciliation procedure between Member States is mandatory before courts can make final fraud determinations
– It sets out specific requirements for when courts can disregard A1 certificates and find fraudMost important provisions:
1. EU social security coordination rules apply even when false A1 certificates are used
2. Member States must follow mandatory dialogue procedures before courts can make fraud determinations
3. Courts can only disregard A1 certificates after proper dialogue between national institutions confirms they are false
4. When social security contributions were collected, fraud can only be established after institutions determine which country’s laws should have applied

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2025.European Union Intellectual Property Office v Neoperl AG.Appeal – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 4 – Signs of which an EU trade mark may consist – Application for registration of a tactile position mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert – Article 7 – Absolute grounds for refusal – Obligation to examine at the outset the ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 – None – Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 72(3) – Power of the General Court to alter the decision of the Board of Appeal – Limits.Case C-93/23 P.

This judgment concerns an appeal regarding an EU trade mark registration case. The essence of the case is:1. Neoperl AG applied to register a tactile position mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert. EUIPO rejected the application first on formal grounds, then the Board of Appeal rejected it for lack of distinctive character.2. The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that the mark’s compliance with basic registration requirements should have been examined before distinctiveness. The Court examined these requirements itself and found the mark did not meet them.3. The Court of Justice overturned the General Court’s judgment, ruling that:

• There is no mandatory order for examining different grounds for refusing trademark registration
• The General Court exceeded its powers by examining requirements that the Board of Appeal had not assessed

The key provisions at issue were Article 7(1) of Regulation 207/2009 on absolute grounds for refusal of EU trademarks and Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 on the General Court’s powers to review EUIPO decisions. The case was referred back to the General Court for a new examination.