Anti-dumping duties on decor paper from China
The Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties ranging from 31.0% to 34.9% on imports of decor paper from China. The investigation found Chinese producers were dumping products at artificially low prices, causing material injury to EU producers. Individual duty rates were set for cooperating companies: Hangzhou Huawang (34.9%), Kingdecor (31.0%), other cooperating companies (33.6%), and all others (34.9%). The measures require valid commercial invoices with specific declarations and security deposits.
Feed additives authorizations
Several feed additives were authorized for use in animal feed:
– Cedarwood Texas essential oil for all animal species until 2035, with maximum content levels ranging from 4-15 mg/kg
– Propyl gallate as an antioxidant with maximum levels of 15-100 mg/kg depending on species
– Cajeput essential oil for all animals until 2035, with content levels from 5-78 mg/kg
– L-cystine authorization renewed until 2035 with minimum 98.5% purity requirement
– Bacterial preparations (Loigolactobacillus and Lactiplantibacillus) authorized as silage additives
Crypto-asset regulations
Several regulations established detailed rules for:
– Oversight of critical ICT third-party service providers
– Approval procedures for crypto-asset white papers
– Creation and operation of supervisory colleges
– Methodology for calculating transaction volumes
– Business continuity requirements
– Standardized complaint handling procedures
Biocidal products
The regulation amended the authorization for ‘SALVECO SALVESAFE PRODUCTS’ biocidal product family, adding new trade names, package sizes and a manufacturer. It covers disinfectants for various uses with specific concentration levels, safety measures and storage requirements.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/291 of 13 February 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of decor paper originating in the People’s Republic of China
The essence of the act:
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/291 imposes provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of decor paper from China. The investigation found that Chinese producers were dumping decor paper on the EU market, causing material injury to EU producers. The duties range from 31.0% to 34.9% and aim to restore fair competition.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation establishes detailed product scope covering decor paper with specific technical characteristics used mainly in furniture and construction industries.
2. The investigation found significant distortions in the Chinese market, including government intervention in raw materials, energy costs, and financing. This justified using costs from Thailand as a representative country to calculate normal value.
3. Key findings:
– Dumping margins between 31.0% and 34.9%
– Material injury to EU industry shown through declining sales, market share and profitability
– Clear causal link between dumped imports and injury
– Measures deemed in the EU’s interest despite some impact on users
4. Main changes:
– First anti-dumping measures on this product
– Introduction of registration requirement for imports
– Individual duty rates for cooperating producers
– Specific provisions on commercial invoice requirements
Most important provisions for use:
1. Duty rates:
– Hangzhou Huawang: 34.9%
– Kingdecor: 31.0%
– Other cooperating companies: 33.6%
– All others: 34.9%
2. Requirements for individual rates:
– Valid commercial invoice with specific declaration
– Conformity with Article 1(3) requirements
– Security deposit equivalent to duty amount
3. Monitoring provisions:
– Registration of imports discontinued
– Possible retroactive collection still under consideration
– Special measures to prevent circumvention
The regulation entered into force the day after publication and is directly applicable in all EU Member States.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/278 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of cedarwood Texas essential oil from Juniperus deppeana Steud. as a feed additive for all animal species
The essence of the act:
This Regulation authorizes the use of cedarwood Texas essential oil from Juniperus deppeana Steud. as a feed additive for all animal species in the European Union. The substance is classified as a sensory additive in the functional group of flavoring compounds. The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035, and includes specific conditions for use, including maximum content recommendations for different animal species.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Regulation consists of three articles and an extensive Annex:
– Article 1 establishes the authorization
– Article 2 sets transitional measures for existing stocks
– Article 3 determines the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical specifications
2. Key changes and provisions:
– The substance was previously authorized without time limit under Directive 70/524/EEC
– The new authorization prohibits the use of the additive in drinking water
– Specific maximum content levels are established for different animal species
– Safety measures for handlers are introduced
– Labeling requirements are detailed
Main important provisions:
1. Technical specifications for the substance, including its composition and chemical characteristics
2. Detailed maximum content recommendations for different animal species (ranging from 4 mg/kg for cats to 15 mg/kg for several species)
3. Mandatory safety measures for users, including the use of protective equipment
4. Transitional periods:
– Until September 5, 2025 for existing additive stocks
– Until March 5, 2026 for compound feed for food-producing animals
– Until March 5, 2027 for compound feed for non-food producing animals
5. Specific labeling requirements for both the additive and premixtures
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/295 of 24 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on harmonisation of conditions enabling the conduct of the oversight activities
This Commission Delegated Regulation supplements the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) by establishing detailed rules for oversight of critical ICT third-party service providers in the financial sector. It sets out requirements for information sharing, monitoring and assessment of compliance with recommendations issued by Lead Overseers. The regulation aims to harmonize oversight activities across the EU to ensure digital operational resilience.
Structure and main provisions:
– Article 1 details what information ICT providers must submit when applying to be designated as critical, including corporate structure, market share, services provided, and client information
– Articles 2-4 specify ongoing information requirements for critical providers, covering areas like contracts, governance, security measures, incident management and technical systems
– Article 5 introduces a standardized template for reporting subcontracting arrangements
– Articles 6-7 outline how competent authorities should assess risks and implementation of recommendations
– The Annex provides a detailed template for subcontracting information
Key provisions for implementation:
1. Comprehensive information requirements for critical ICT providers, covering organizational, technical and operational aspects
2. Structured approach to monitoring implementation of recommendations through interim and final reports
3. Standardized template and format requirements for information sharing
4. Clear process for competent authorities to assess impact on financial entities
5. Detailed requirements for subcontracting arrangements reporting
The regulation creates a robust framework for oversight while ensuring standardized information flows between providers, overseers and competent authorities.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/296 of 31 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the procedure for the approval of a crypto-asset white paper
This Regulation establishes detailed procedures for the approval of crypto-asset white papers by competent authorities in the EU. It supplements the main Regulation 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets by setting specific timelines, requirements, and processes for credit institutions seeking approval of their white papers.
The structure of the act consists of 10 articles covering the entire approval procedure, from initial application to final decision. The main provisions include application requirements, completeness assessment, information exchange with the ECB and central banks, substantive assessment, and final approval procedures. This is a new regulation without previous versions as it implements recently adopted crypto-assets legislation.
Key provisions include:
– Electronic submission requirement for all communications
– 20-working-day timeline for completeness assessment
– Two-stage assessment process: completeness check followed by substantive review
– Mandatory consultation with ECB or relevant central banks
– Specific requirements for revised versions of white papers, including marked-up versions showing changes
– Clear deadlines for each stage of the approval process:
* 2 working days for initial acknowledgment
* 20 working days for completeness assessment
* 10 working days for requesting changes
* 10 working days for final decision
– Requirement for final approval before publication of the white paper
The regulation provides a comprehensive framework ensuring standardized and efficient approval procedures for crypto-asset white papers across the EU, with clear responsibilities for both credit institutions and competent authorities.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/281 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of propyl gallate as a feed additive for all animal species
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/281 authorizes the use of propyl gallate as a feed additive for all animal species. This regulation establishes specific conditions and maximum concentrations for the use of this antioxidant in animal nutrition, based on safety assessments by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation consists of three articles and an annex:
– Article 1 establishes the authorization of propyl gallate as a feed additive
– Article 2 sets transitional measures for existing stocks
– Article 3 determines the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical specifications, including maximum content levels for different animal species
Main provisions for practical use:
1. Maximum concentration limits vary by animal species:
– 40 mg/kg for bovines, sheep, goats, cervids, camelids, sows, equines, and fish
– 100 mg/kg for ornamental fish
– 15-71 mg/kg for other species, depending on category
2. Safety measures and restrictions:
– The additive cannot be used in drinking water
– Specific storage conditions and stability requirements must be indicated
– Personal protective equipment is required due to skin and eye irritation risks
3. Transitional periods:
– Until September 5, 2025 for existing additive and premixtures
– Until March 5, 2026 for compound feed for food-producing animals
– Until March 5, 2027 for compound feed for non-food producing animals
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/279 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of cajeput essential oil from Melaleuca cajuputi Maton & Sm. ex R. Powell and Melaleuca leucadendra (L.) L. as a feed additive for all animal species
The essence of the act:
This Regulation authorizes the use of cajeput essential oil derived from Melaleuca cajuputi and Melaleuca leucadendra as a feed additive for all animal species in the EU. The oil is classified as a sensory additive in the functional group of flavoring compounds. The authorization sets specific maximum content levels for different animal species and includes safety measures for handling the additive.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Regulation consists of three articles and an extensive annex:
– Article 1 establishes the authorization
– Article 2 sets transitional measures for existing stocks
– Article 3 determines the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical specifications
2. Key provisions include:
– The additive must be incorporated into feed as a premixture
– Specific maximum content recommendations for different animal species (ranging from 5 mg/kg for cats to 78 mg/kg for calves)
– The additive cannot be used in drinking water
– Detailed chemical specifications (e.g., 1,8-Cineole content of 50-70%)
– Storage conditions and stability requirements must be indicated
– Safety measures for handlers are mandatory
Most important provisions for use:
1. The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035
2. Existing stocks can continue to be used under specific transition periods:
– Until stocks are exhausted for products labeled before September 5, 2025
– Until March 5, 2026 for food-producing animals
– Until March 5, 2027 for non-food producing animals
3. Mandatory labeling requirements including:
– Maximum content recommendations for each species
– Storage conditions
– Safety warnings
4. Operational procedures and protective measures must be implemented by users to address potential health risks.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/297 of 31 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions for the establishment and functioning of consultative supervisory colleges
This Regulation establishes detailed rules for the creation and operation of consultative supervisory colleges for issuers of significant crypto-assets under EU law. It specifies how the European Banking Authority (EBA) should determine the most relevant entities to participate in these colleges and sets conditions for when crypto-assets are considered to be used at “large scale” in Member States.
The structure of the act consists of 11 articles covering:
– Criteria for determining relevant entities for college membership (Articles 1-2)
– Reference periods and reassessment procedures (Articles 3-4)
– Written agreements and operational aspects (Articles 5-8)
– Information exchange and task entrustment (Articles 9-10)
Key provisions include:
– Specific metrics for determining the most relevant crypto-asset service providers, including transaction volumes and custody values
– Clear thresholds for when tokens are considered used at “large scale” (20% of population or over 1.25 million daily transactions worth €250 million)
– Requirements for college meetings at least annually and procedures for information sharing
– Rules for decision-making requiring simple majority voting
– Provisions allowing EBA to establish multiple colleges for issuers with several significant tokens
– Framework for secure exchange of confidential information between college members
– Possibility to entrust certain supervisory tasks among college members
The act provides a comprehensive framework for coordinated supervision of significant crypto-assets through collaborative supervisory structures.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/298 of 31 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the methodology to estimate the number and value of transactions associated to uses of asset-referenced tokens and of e-money tokens denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of a Member State as a means of exchange
This Regulation establishes a methodology for estimating transactions associated with asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens used as means of exchange in the EU. It specifies how issuers should calculate and report the number and value of transactions with these tokens, particularly focusing on transactions where tokens are used for payments rather than investment purposes.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Regulation consists of 6 articles covering subject matter, definitions, transaction types, calculation methods, data quality requirements, and entry into force.
2. Key changes include the introduction of specific criteria for what constitutes a transaction (including both custodial and non-custodial wallets), and detailed methodology for calculating transaction values in different currencies.
Main important provisions:
– The Regulation distinguishes between transactions for payment purposes and those for investment purposes, with only payment-related transactions being counted
– Issuers must exclude certain transactions from their calculations, such as token exchanges for funds or other crypto-assets, and transactions where tokens are used as collateral
– Only transactions where both payer and payee are located in the same single currency area within the EU are included
– Issuers must implement systems and procedures to ensure data quality and reconciliation
– The methodology applies to both asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens denominated in non-EU currencies
– Transactions must be reported quarterly with specific reference dates (March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/272 of 12 February 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of L-cystine as a feed additive for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2013
This Regulation concerns the renewal of authorization for L-cystine as a feed additive for all animal species. L-cystine is an amino acid produced by hydrolysis of keratin from poultry feathers, which is used as a nutritional additive in animal feed. The regulation extends the authorization period until March 5, 2035, while maintaining safety standards and specific conditions for its use.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation consists of 4 articles and an annex detailing technical specifications:
– Article 1 renews the authorization
– Article 2 repeals the previous regulation
– Article 3 establishes transitional measures
– Article 4 sets the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical requirements
The main changes include updated analytical methods and more specific safety measures for users handling the additive.
Key provisions for implementation:
1. The minimum content of L-cystine in the additive must be 98.5%
2. Specific labeling requirements including storage conditions and stability information
3. Warning about supplementation depending on animals’ requirements
4. Mandatory safety measures for handlers, including breathing protection equipment
5. Transitional periods allowing:
– Until September 5, 2025 for existing additive stocks
– Until March 5, 2026 for compound feed for food-producing animals
– Until March 5, 2027 for compound feed for non-food producing animals
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/292 of 26 September 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards establishing a template document for cooperation arrangements between competent authorities and supervisory authorities of third countries
This Commission Delegated Regulation establishes a standardized template for cooperation arrangements between EU Member States’ competent authorities and third-country supervisory authorities regarding crypto-assets markets. It supplements the main Regulation 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets by providing detailed guidelines for information exchange and enforcement cooperation.
The act consists of three main articles and an extensive annex. Article 1 introduces the template document, Article 2 addresses personal data transfers, and Article 3 sets the entry into force. The Annex provides a detailed template structure with 11 sections covering various aspects of cooperation arrangements.
Key provisions include:
1. A standardized template for cooperation arrangements that covers definitions, types of assistance, procedures for requests, and confidentiality requirements
2. Specific grounds for denying assistance requests, while prohibiting denial based solely on differences in legal frameworks
3. Strict rules on personal data protection in compliance with GDPR (Regulation 2016/679)
4. Detailed confidentiality requirements for all exchanged information
5. Mandatory designation of contact points and periodic review of cooperation arrangements
6. Clear guidelines on permissible uses of exchanged information
7. Requirements for obtaining prior consent for using information beyond stated purposes
8. Provisions for mutual assistance in enforcement actions, including asset freezing and cessation of illegal practices
The template ensures consistency in international cooperation while maintaining necessary safeguards for data protection and confidentiality.
: This regulation has implications for Ukraine as it affects potential cooperation arrangements between EU authorities and Ukrainian supervisory authorities in the crypto-assets market, particularly relevant for Ukraine’s European integration process and alignment with EU financial regulations.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/293 of 30 September 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the requirements, templates and procedures for the handling of complaints relating to asset referenced tokens
The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/293 establishes detailed requirements for handling complaints related to asset-referenced tokens in the EU. It supplements the main Regulation 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets by setting specific procedures, templates, and standards for complaint handling by token issuers and third-party entities.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation consists of 7 articles and an annex containing a standardized complaint template
2. Key elements include:
– Establishment of complaints management policy and function
– Requirements for providing information to token holders
– Language requirements for complaints
– Procedures for investigating complaints
– Specific provisions for third-party entities
– Standardized complaint template
Main important provisions:
1. Complaints must be handled free of charge and can be submitted in electronic or paper form
2. Issuers must acknowledge receipt of complaints and provide clear timelines for handling
3. Complaints can be filed in the languages used for marketing services or official languages of relevant Member States
4. Issuers must analyze complaints data to identify systemic problems
5. Third-party entities must coordinate with issuers on complaint handling
6. A standardized template must be used for filing complaints
7. Personal data protection requirements must be observed
8. Issuers must maintain proper records of complaints and responses
9. Clear communication about investigation outcomes is required, including options for further action if the complainant is not satisfied
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/284 of 12 February 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755, endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49754 and polygalacturonase produced with Aspergillus fijiensis CBS 589.94 as a feed additive for weaned piglets and the authorisation of that preparation as a feed additive for suckling piglets (holder of authorisation: AVEVE BV) and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 527/2011
This Commission Implementing Regulation concerns the authorization of a specific enzyme preparation as a feed additive for piglets. The preparation consists of three enzymes (endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase, and polygalacturonase) produced by specific strains of microorganisms. The regulation both renews the existing authorization for weaned piglets and extends it to include suckling piglets.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation renews the previous authorization (Regulation No 527/2011) for weaned piglets and extends it to suckling piglets
2. It sets specific conditions for the use of the additive, including minimum content requirements and safety measures
3. The regulation includes detailed technical specifications in the Annex, covering the composition, characterization, and analytical methods
4. It establishes transitional measures allowing existing stocks to be used up until specific dates
5. The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035
Key provisions for implementation:
– The additive must meet minimum activity requirements for each enzyme component in both solid and liquid forms
– Feed business operators must implement safety procedures and provide protective equipment for workers
– Storage conditions and heat treatment stability must be indicated in the directions for use
– Specific analytical methods must be used for determining enzyme content in feed additives and compound feed
– The regulation includes transitional periods until September 2025 for premixtures and March 2026 for compound feed produced under the previous rules
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/275 of 12 February 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 as a feed additive for rabbits other than suckling and breeding rabbits (holder of authorisation: S. I. Lesaffre) and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 334/2012
This Commission Implementing Regulation concerns the renewal of authorization for using Saccharomyces cerevisiae (a specific strain of yeast) as a feed additive for rabbits. The regulation extends the previous authorization that was granted in 2012 for another 10-year period until 2035, based on safety assessments and scientific evidence.
Structure and main provisions:
1. Legal basis and background (Recitals 1-5): Explains the previous authorization and renewal application process, including safety assessment by European Food Safety Authority
2. Core decision (Recitals 6-9): Confirms that conditions for renewal are met and establishes transitional measures
3. Operative part (Articles 1-4): Contains formal authorization renewal, repeals previous regulation, and sets transitional periods
4. Technical Annex: Provides detailed specifications about the additive, including composition, analytical methods, and conditions of use
Key provisions for practical use:
– The authorization is renewed for Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 as a feed additive for non-breeding rabbits
– Minimum content requirement is 5 × 109 CFU/kg of feed
– Storage conditions and heat treatment stability must be indicated in usage directions
– Safety measures for handlers are required, including protective equipment for breathing and skin
– Transitional periods allow continued use of existing stocks: until September 2025 for additives and premixtures, and until March 2026 for compound feed and feed materials
– The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/277 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 as a feed additive for all animal species
This Regulation authorizes the use of Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 as a feed additive for all animal species. The bacterial preparation is classified as a technological additive in the functional group of silage additives, aimed at improving the preservation of nutrients in animal feed. The European Food Safety Authority has confirmed its safety for animals, consumers, and the environment.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Regulation consists of two main articles and a detailed Annex:
– Article 1 establishes the authorization of the additive
– Article 2 sets the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical specifications
2. Key technical requirements from the Annex:
– The preparation must contain a minimum of 2 × 10¹¹ CFU/g of the additive
– Minimum dose when used alone: 1 × 10⁸ CFU/kg of fresh material
– Storage conditions must be clearly indicated
– If used with cryoprotectant, polyethylene glycol (PEG 4000) is limited to 0.025 mg/kg silage
Most important provisions for use:
1. The additive is authorized for all animal species without age restrictions
2. Special safety measures are required for handlers, including personal protective equipment for skin, eye, and respiratory protection
3. The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035
4. Specific analytical methods must be used for enumeration and identification of the bacterial strain
5. Feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/299 of 31 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in crypto-assets with regard to regulatory technical standards on continuity and regularity in the performance of crypto-asset services
The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/299 establishes detailed requirements for crypto-asset service providers regarding business continuity and regular performance of their services. It supplements the main Regulation 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets by setting technical standards for ensuring service reliability and handling disruptions.
Structure and main provisions:
1. Definitions and scope (Articles 1-2):
– Defines critical functions and permissionless distributed ledgers
– Establishes organizational requirements for business continuity policy
2. Business Continuity Requirements (Articles 3-5):
– Mandatory elements of business continuity policy
– Detailed requirements for business continuity plans
– Procedures for handling disruptions and communication
– Annual testing requirements
– Documentation and reporting obligations
3. Risk Assessment (Articles 6-7):
– Self-assessment requirements based on complexity and risk
– Criteria for evaluating service provider’s scale and impact
– Detailed assessment criteria in the Annex
Key provisions for implementation:
1. Mandatory annual testing of business continuity plans with documentation
2. Specific requirements for handling disruptions in permissionless distributed ledgers
3. Communication procedures with clients and stakeholders during disruptions
4. Regular self-assessment based on detailed criteria including:
– Nature of services
– Scale of operations
– Complexity of technical infrastructure
– Number of clients and transaction volumes
5. Special attention to critical functions and outsourced operations
6. Management body responsibility for policy implementation and review
The regulation provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring operational resilience in the crypto-asset services sector while considering the specific challenges of distributed ledger technology.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/294 of 1 October 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the requirements, templates and procedures for the handling of complaints by the crypto-asset service providers
The act establishes detailed requirements for handling complaints by crypto-asset service providers in the European Union, ensuring standardized and fair treatment of client complaints across the EU.
The regulation consists of 9 articles and an annex, covering all aspects of complaints handling from filing to resolution. Key structural elements include requirements for information and procedures, resources allocation, means of filing complaints, investigation process, decision-making, and communication standards. The act introduces new standardized templates and procedures that weren’t previously regulated at the EU level for crypto-asset services.
Main provisions:
1. Crypto-asset service providers must establish clear complaints handling procedures and make them easily accessible on their websites
2. Complaints can be filed in any language used by the provider for marketing or client communication, as well as in official EU languages of relevant member states
3. Providers must acknowledge complaints and respond within 2 months, with clear justification for decisions
4. A standardized complaint template is provided in the annex, though its use is not mandatory
5. Service providers must dedicate adequate resources to complaint handling and ensure staff training
6. Providers must analyze complaints data continuously to improve their processes
7. All communication must be clear, in writing, and available both electronically and in paper form
8. Management body must endorse and monitor the complaints handling procedures
9. Personal data protection requirements must be observed throughout the process
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/285 of 12 February 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1758 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation of the biocidal product family SALVECO SALVESAFE PRODUCTS
Here’s a detailed analysis of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/285:
1. Essence of the act (3-5 sentences):
This regulation amends the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1758 regarding administrative changes to the Union authorization of the biocidal product family ‘SALVECO SALVESAFE PRODUCTS’. The changes include the addition of 6 trade names, a new package size within the already authorized range, and a new product manufacturer. The regulation aims to enhance clarity and ease access to the consolidated version of the summary of biocidal product characteristics.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The regulation consists of 2 articles and an extensive annex
– Article 1 replaces the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1758
– Article 2 sets the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed information about:
* Administrative information
* Product family composition and formulation
* Meta SPC (Specific Product Characteristics) for 9 different product categories
* Hazard and precautionary statements
* Authorized uses
* Instructions for use
* Risk mitigation measures
3. Main important provisions:
– The regulation authorizes biocidal products for three main purposes:
* Disinfectants not intended for direct application to humans or animals
* Food and feed area disinfectants
* Veterinary hygiene disinfectants
– Products must be used according to specific concentration levels and contact times
– Different packaging requirements for professional and non-professional users
– Detailed safety measures and instructions for use
– Specific storage conditions and shelf-life requirements (2 years)
– Environmental protection measures, including restrictions on outdoor use in case of rain
– Mandatory protective equipment requirements for professional users
– Specific first aid instructions and emergency measures
The regulation is highly technical and focuses on ensuring safe and effective use of these biocidal products while protecting human health and the environment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/273 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 as a feed additive for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation authorizes the use of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 as a feed additive for all animal species. The regulation establishes specific conditions for the use of this bacterial preparation as a silage additive, which helps improve the preservation of animal feed through fermentation. The authorization is valid until March 5, 2035.
Structure and main provisions:
1. Legal basis and background (Recitals 1-3): Establishes the framework for feed additive authorization under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.
2. Safety assessment (Recital 4): European Food Safety Authority’s conclusion on safety for animals, consumers, and environment, with specific warnings about user safety.
3. Authorization conditions (Article 1 and Annex):
– Minimum concentration of 4 × 10¹¹ CFU/g in the additive
– Minimum application dose of 1×10⁸ CFU/kg fresh material
– Use limited to easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material
– Specific storage conditions must be indicated
– Safety measures for handlers required
Key provisions for practical use:
1. The additive must be used with protective equipment due to potential skin and respiratory sensitization risks
2. Specific analytical methods are prescribed for quality control
3. When used as a cryoprotectant, polyethylene glycol (PEG 4000) is limited to 0.025 mg/kg silage
4. The preparation must meet minimum viable cell count requirements
5. Storage conditions must be clearly indicated on the product
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/276 of 12 February 2025 concerning the authorisation of clove tincture from Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry as a feed additive for all animal species
The essence of the act:
This Regulation authorizes the use of clove tincture from Syzygium aromaticum as a feed additive for all animal species in the EU. The authorization classifies it as a sensory additive in the functional group of flavoring compounds, setting specific conditions and limitations for its use, including maximum content levels and safety measures.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The act consists of three articles and an annex:
– Article 1 establishes the authorization of clove tincture as a feed additive
– Article 2 sets transitional measures for existing stocks and products
– Article 3 determines the entry into force
– The Annex provides detailed technical specifications
2. Key changes and provisions:
– The substance is authorized as a sensory additive for all animal species except in drinking water
– Maximum content levels are set at 50 mg/kg for most animals and 200 mg/kg for Equidae
– The regulation includes specific requirements for the composition and purity of the additive
– Safety measures for handlers are mandatory
Main important provisions:
1. Technical specifications for the additive, including precise content requirements for various compounds (dry matter, polyphenols, flavonoids, eugenol, etc.)
2. Mandatory incorporation of the additive into feed through premixtures only
3. Specific storage and stability requirements must be indicated
4. Mixture with other botanical additives is permitted under certain conditions
5. Implementation of safety measures for handlers, including personal protective equipment
6. Transitional periods allowing the use of existing stocks until:
– September 2025 for premixtures
– March 2026 for food-producing animals
– March 2027 for non-food producing animals
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Athenian Brewery SA and Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Article 8(1) – Multiple defendants – Claims ‘so closely connected’ that it is expedient to hear and determine them together – Article 102 TFEU – Concept of an ‘undertaking’ – Parent and subsidiary companies – Infringement committed by the subsidiary – Presumption of dominant influence exercised by the parent company – Joint and several liability – Decision of a national competition authority – Actions for compensation.Case C-393/23.
Here’s a detailed analysis of the judgment:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. The case deals with whether a court can establish its jurisdiction based solely on the presumption that a parent company exercises decisive influence over its subsidiary in competition law cases. The Court ruled that such jurisdiction can be established based on this presumption, provided defendants can present evidence to rebut it.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses questions referred by the Dutch Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction in competition law cases
– Main sections include:
* Legal context (Regulations 1/2003, 1215/2012, Directive 2014/104)
* Facts of the main proceedings
* Analysis of Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012
* Discussion of parent company liability presumption
* Requirements for establishing jurisdiction
– Key changes/clarifications:
* Extends the application of parent company liability presumption to civil damages cases
* Clarifies jurisdictional requirements in competition law cases
* Establishes balance between jurisdictional efficiency and defendants’ rights
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Courts can establish jurisdiction based on parent company liability presumption in competition cases
– The presumption applies when parent company holds all or almost all subsidiary’s capital
– Defendants must have opportunity to present evidence rebutting the presumption
– Courts don’t need to conduct comprehensive evidence examination at jurisdiction stage
– Connection between claims against parent and subsidiary must be genuine, not artificial
– National courts must consider all available information when determining jurisdiction
– The ruling balances procedural efficiency with protection of defendants’ rights
The judgment provides important practical guidance for courts and parties in competition law cases involving parent-subsidiary relationships and jurisdictional questions.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.European Commission and Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) v Carpatair SA.Appeal – State aid – Aviation sector – Measures implemented by Timişoara International Airport (Romania) in favour of Wizz Air and other airlines using that airport – Decision finding that there is no State aid – Action for annulment – Article 263 TFEU – Admissibility – Condition that the applicant must be directly and individually concerned – Obligation to state reasons – Distortion of the evidence.Joined Cases C-244/23 P and C-245/23 P.
The essence of this judgment in 3-5 sentences:
This is a Court of Justice of the EU judgment concerning appeals against a General Court decision that had annulled part of a European Commission decision about alleged state aid at Timișoara International Airport in Romania. The case involved claims by airline Carpatair that agreements between the airport and Wizz Air constituted illegal state aid. The Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgment because it failed to properly substantiate its findings that Carpatair had legal standing to challenge the Commission’s decision, specifically by not adequately demonstrating that Carpatair was directly and individually concerned by the measures in question.
Main provisions and structure:
– The judgment addresses three separate appeals brought by the European Commission, Wizz Air, and Timișoara Airport against the General Court’s ruling
– The key issue was whether Carpatair had legal standing to challenge the Commission’s state aid decision
– The Court focused on two main conditions for standing: being “individually concerned” and “directly concerned” by the contested decision
– The Court found the General Court’s reasoning inadequate on both conditions
Most important provisions:
1. The Court clarified that to have standing, an applicant must show it is affected by certain attributes peculiar to it or circumstances that distinguish it from all other persons
2. The Court emphasized that demonstrating competitive harm requires at least a prima facie showing that the measure substantially affects the applicant’s market position
3. The Court held that the General Court failed to properly examine evidence about whether Carpatair and Wizz Air were actually competitors
4. The Court found that the General Court did not adequately explain why decreases in Carpatair’s yields were attributable to the contested agreements rather than other factors
5. The case was referred back to the General Court for a new examination of Carpatair’s standing to bring the action
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Società Agricola Circe di OL Società Semplice v ST, en son nom propre et en tant que gérant de l’entreprise individuelle Agricola Case Rosse di ST and Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 – Single payment scheme – Article 33 – Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 – Payment entitlements – Eligibility – Article 15 – Concept of ‘scission’ – Reduction of the agricultural area after the provisional allocation of payment entitlements – Relevance of that reduction for the definitive allocation of the aid.Case C-625/23.
Here’s a detailed analysis of the Court’s judgment:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
This is a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU agricultural regulations regarding the single payment scheme for farmers. The key issue was whether the concept of “scission” in Regulation No 1782/2003 and Regulation No 795/2004 should be interpreted narrowly (only as formal company division) or broadly (including related legal transactions resulting in division of agricultural holdings). The Court ruled that “scission” should be interpreted broadly to cover situations where related legal transactions between farmers result in allocation of original property and areas to two new separate farmers, even if not constituting a formal company division.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses interpretation of Article 33(3) of Regulation 1782/2003 and Article 15(2) of Regulation 795/2004
– Main structural elements:
* Legal context (EU and national law)
* Facts of the case
* Questions referred for preliminary ruling
* Court’s analysis of the first question
* Decision not to address second question
– Key changes/clarifications:
* Broad interpretation of “scission” concept
* Focus on effects rather than form of transactions
* Confirmation of link between payment entitlements and agricultural areas
3. Most important provisions for practical use:
– The concept of “scission” covers situations where:
* Related legal transactions occur between farmers during reference period
* Transactions include transfer of shares and cultivated areas
* Result is allocation of original property to two new separate farmers
* No requirement for formal company division
– Payment entitlements must be linked to actual agricultural areas
– Farmers must have real management control over agricultural areas
– Pro rata allocation of payment entitlements based on transferred production units
The judgment provides important practical guidance for agricultural authorities and farmers on how to handle cases involving transfers of agricultural holdings and associated payment entitlements under the EU’s common agricultural policy.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 83(4) to (6) and (9) – Concept of an ‘undertaking’ – Parent company and subsidiary – Infringement of that regulation by a subsidiary – Calculation of the amount of the fine – Consideration of the total turnover of the group of which that subsidiary forms part.Case C-383/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of fines calculation under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in cases involving companies that are part of larger corporate groups.
The essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The Court clarifies how to calculate fines for GDPR violations when the violator is part of a larger corporate group. It establishes that the term “undertaking” in GDPR corresponds to the concept used in EU competition law, meaning the entire economic unit must be considered. The maximum fine amount should be based on the total worldwide annual turnover of the whole undertaking/group, not just the subsidiary that committed the violation.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The judgment addresses two key questions:
– Whether “undertaking” in GDPR means the same as in EU competition law
– How to calculate fines based on turnover when dealing with corporate groups
2. Main conclusions:
– The concept of “undertaking” from competition law applies when calculating GDPR fines
– Maximum fine amounts should be based on total group turnover
– The actual fine must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive
– Courts must consider both specific violations and the economic capacity of the whole undertaking
Most important provisions for use:
– When calculating maximum GDPR fines for companies in groups, authorities must look at total group turnover
– The actual fine amount should consider:
* Specific circumstances of the violation
* Economic capacity of the whole undertaking
* Need for effectiveness, proportionality and deterrence
– These principles apply both to administrative fines and criminal penalties
– National courts must respect criminal law procedural rights when imposing fines
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Swissgrid AG v European Commission.Appeal – Internal market for electricity – Guideline on electricity balancing – Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – Article 1(6) and (7) – Transmission system operators (TSOs) – Participation in European platforms for the exchange of standard products for balancing energy – Article 263 TFEU – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Concept of ‘challengeable act’ – Letter from the European Commission refusing the participation of a TSO operating in Switzerland in European platforms.Case C-121/23 P.
Here’s a detailed description of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment:
1. Essence of the act (3-5 sentences):
The judgment concerns an appeal by Swissgrid AG (Swiss transmission system operator) against a General Court order that dismissed its action for annulment of a European Commission letter. The letter refused to authorize Switzerland’s participation in European electricity balancing platforms. The case revolves around whether this Commission letter constitutes a “challengeable act” under EU law and whether Swissgrid has standing to challenge it.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment analyzes whether the Commission’s letter refusing Swiss participation in EU electricity balancing platforms can be challenged in court
– Key legal provisions examined: Article 263 TFEU (right to challenge EU acts) and Regulation 2017/2195 Article 1(6)-(7) (conditions for Swiss participation)
– The Court found the General Court made errors in its analysis by:
* Incorrectly applying criteria for addressees rather than non-addressees of the act
* Not properly considering the substance and binding effects of the Commission’s letter
* Adding an improper criterion about individual rights
– The Court set aside the General Court’s order and referred the case back for new examination
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Clarifies criteria for determining when a Commission letter/informal act can be challenged in court:
* Focus should be on whether act produces binding legal effects for its addressees
* For non-addressees, no need to show binding effects on their own legal position at admissibility stage
* Formal requirements (like proper signing authority) not decisive for challengeability
– Establishes that Commission cannot avoid judicial review by using informal communications
– Sets standards for analyzing standing to challenge EU acts when not directly addressed to the challenger
The judgment provides important guidance on access to judicial review of EU administrative acts, particularly for third country entities affected by EU decisions.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v Vodafone GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) – Electronic communications networks and services – Universal service and users’ rights – Consumer protection – Contracts concluded between a consumer and an undertaking providing electronic communications services – Facilitating change of provider – Article 30(5) – Initial commitment period – Concept.Case C-612/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of consumer protection provisions in telecommunications contracts under EU law. Here’s a detailed analysis:
1. Essence of the act (3-5 sentences):
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of the “initial commitment period” concept in telecommunications contracts under the Universal Service Directive. It establishes that the 24-month maximum commitment period applies not only to initial contracts between consumers and telecom providers but also to subsequent contracts between the same parties. The Court emphasizes that this interpretation aims to protect consumers and facilitate their ability to change service providers in a competitive market.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses a case between a German consumer protection association and Vodafone GmbH
– The core issue is whether the 24-month maximum commitment period applies only to initial contracts or also to contract renewals
– The Court analyzes Article 30(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC through:
* Linguistic interpretation across different EU languages
* Analysis of the directive’s objectives
* Consideration of consumer protection principles
– The ruling establishes that subsequent contracts cannot exceed the 24-month limit
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The 24-month maximum commitment period applies to both initial and subsequent contracts
– This limitation applies even when the new contract is signed before the expiry of the initial contract
– The interpretation is particularly relevant when the subsequent contract contains substantial changes (pricing, content, or nature of services)
– Service providers cannot circumvent the 24-month limitation through contract renewals or extensions
– The ruling emphasizes that consumer protection levels should not be lower in subsequent contracts compared to initial contracts
The judgment significantly strengthens consumer rights in telecommunications contracts by preventing providers from imposing extended commitment periods through contract renewals or modifications.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.Lexitor sp. z o.o. v A.B. S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 10(2) – Duty to provide information – Annual percentage rate of charge – Modification of charges and commissions – Article 23 – National rules on penalties – Principle of proportionality.Case C-472/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2008/48/EC on consumer credit agreements. Here is the detailed analysis:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The judgment addresses three key questions regarding consumer credit agreements under EU law: 1) whether overstating the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC) due to unfair terms constitutes a violation of information obligations; 2) whether listing circumstances for cost increases without allowing consumers to verify them violates information requirements; and 3) whether national penalties for information violations can be uniform regardless of their severity. The Court ruled that overstated APRC due to unfair terms is not automatically a violation, but unclear cost increase conditions that prevent consumers from assessing their liability do violate the directive. The Court also found that uniform penalties like forfeiting interest rights can be proportionate if the violation affects consumers’ ability to assess their liability.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment analyzes Article 10(2)(g) and (k) and Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC
– It examines three separate but related questions about consumer credit information requirements
– The ruling builds on previous case law about consumer protection and transparency requirements
– The Court provides specific guidance on how to assess compliance with information obligations
– The judgment balances creditor obligations with proportionate enforcement measures
3. Most important provisions for use:
– Creditors must provide clear and verifiable information about potential cost increases
– The APRC calculation must be based on all costs at the time of contract conclusion
– Information requirements aim to allow consumers to assess their total liability
– National penalties for violations must be effective and proportionate
– Uniform penalties like interest forfeiture can be justified for serious information violations that affect consumer understanding
The judgment provides important clarification for both creditors and national courts on how to interpret and apply consumer credit information requirements under EU law.
: This judgment has implications for Ukraine as it sets standards for consumer credit agreements that would need to be followed under EU harmonization requirements.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2025.SIA ,,Latvijas Sabiedriskais Autobuss” v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs and VSIA „Autotransporta direkcija”.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Public passenger transport services by rail and by road – Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 – Public passenger transport services by bus – Point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) – Award of public service contracts – Award of a contract for the provision of public transport services by bus – Award in the form of a service concession contract – Direct award by a competent local authority to an internal operator – Article 5(3) – Competitive tendering procedure – Award of a contract for the provision of public transport services by bus by another competent authority – Participation of the internal operator – Conditions.Case C-684/23.
Here’s a detailed analysis of the legal act (Court of Justice of the European Union judgment):
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The judgment concerns the interpretation of Regulation No 1370/2007 regarding public passenger transport services, specifically focusing on conditions for participation of internal operators in competitive tendering procedures. The Court ruled that when an internal operator (who previously received a direct contract award) participates in a competitive tender, the contracting authority is not required to verify compliance with conditions set out in Article 5(2) of the Regulation. The case clarifies the relationship between direct award procedures and competitive tendering procedures in public transport services.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses preliminary questions from a Latvian court regarding a dispute over a public bus transport contract
– Main structural elements include:
* Legal context (EU and national legislation)
* Facts of the case
* Analysis of three preliminary questions
* Court’s reasoning and interpretation
– Key changes/clarifications:
* Distinguishes between rules applicable to direct awards vs competitive tenders
* Clarifies that Article 5(2) conditions apply only to direct award validity
* Confirms that competitive tenders should be open to all operators
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The judgment establishes that internal operators who received direct contract awards can participate in competitive tenders without needing to meet Article 5(2) conditions
– Competitive tendering procedures must be:
* Open to all operators
* Fair
* Transparent
* Non-discriminatory
– Competent authorities must ensure fair competition through appropriate measures while allowing internal operators to demonstrate their tenders are fair and non-discriminatory
– The ruling preserves wide participation in tenders while maintaining safeguards for fair competition
– Service concession contracts for public transport are excluded from Directive 2014/23 and fall under Regulation 1370/2007
The judgment provides important clarification for public authorities and transport operators regarding participation rules in competitive tendering procedures for public transport services.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 10 July 2024 concerning alleged aid granted by the Municipality of Farsund in conjunction with a property development cooperation through Farsund Vekst [2025/307]
Here’s a detailed analysis of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 2025/307:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The decision concerns alleged State aid granted by the Municipality of Farsund (Norway) in relation to property development cooperation through Farsund Vekst. The case involved the assessment of several measures including option agreements for properties, sale of land, and sale of shares in Farsund Vekst. After extensive investigation, ESA concluded that none of the measures constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, as they were found to be conducted on market terms.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision is structured in two main parts:
Part I – Facts:
– Detailed procedural history
– Background of the property development cooperation
– Description of the measures under investigation
– Comments from involved parties
Part II – Assessment:
– Legal framework analysis
– Application of the Market Economy Operator Principle (MEOP)
– Assessment of individual measures
– Final conclusions
Main provisions include:
– Analysis of option agreements for Nordkapp and Farøy properties
– Assessment of land sales transactions
– Evaluation of share sales in Farsund Vekst
– Application of MEOP to all transactions
3. Most important provisions for use:
a) Market Economy Operator Principle application:
– The assessment must be based on information available at the time of the transaction
– Comparison must be made with a normally prudent private operator in a similar situation
– Overall commercial context must be considered
b) Burden of proof:
– ESA must objectively prove the existence of State aid
– Cannot rely on negative presumptions
– Must conduct diligent and impartial examination
c) Transaction assessment:
– Individual measures cannot be assessed in isolation from their commercial context
– Pre-existing contractual obligations must be considered
– Market conditions at the time of transaction are relevant
The decision provides important guidance on how complex property development cooperation between public and private entities should be assessed under State aid rules, emphasizing the importance of considering the full commercial context rather than isolated transactions.
