The regulation introduces significant changes to organic wine production in the EU, particularly regarding de-alcoholisation methods. It allows vacuum distillation techniques and partial vacuum evaporation for producing de-alcoholised organic wines.
The new rules set specific technical parameters:
– Maximum temperature of 75°C during the process
– Minimum filtration pore size of 0.2 micrometers
– Final alcohol content must not exceed 0.5% by volume
The regulation permits these de-alcoholisation methods to be used either separately or in combination, while maintaining organic integrity requirements. The distillation process must be performed under vacuum conditions, and all other organic wine production rules continue to apply.
The second regulation modifies EU sanctions against Syria by suspending various sectoral restrictions and introducing new humanitarian exemptions. It removes trade, financial and transport measures while maintaining certain targeted restrictions. The changes allow for broader humanitarian aid delivery and support for basic human needs through UN agencies and humanitarian organizations.
The third regulation removes two individuals from the EU sanctions list regarding Sudan, following UN Security Council Committee decisions. The delisted persons are Abdulrahman JUMA BARAKALLAH and Osman Mohamed HAMID.
Another regulation concerning Syria removes six financial and aviation entities from sanctions while maintaining asset freeze for the Central Bank of Syria. The delisted entities include Industrial Bank, Popular Credit Bank, Saving Bank, Agricultural Cooperative Bank, and Syrian Arab Airlines.
The Belarus sanctions regulation updates information for 10 individuals and two entities (MAZ and Belshina), removes two entries, and extends restrictive measures until February 2026. It provides new details about MAZ’s military truck supplies to Russia and Belshina’s role in providing tires to Russian military.
The Court judgment clarifies that in patent infringement cases, EU courts maintain jurisdiction even when patent validity is challenged, though validity issues must be decided by courts of the state that granted the patent. For non-EU patents, EU courts can examine validity as a defense.
Another Court judgment establishes new principles for digital platforms under EU competition law, particularly regarding platform interoperability. It introduces a more flexible approach for digital platform access and sets requirements for template development and market definition.
The judicial remuneration judgment sets specific requirements for determining judges’ pay, including that it must be provided by law, be objective and transparent, and ensure remuneration commensurate with judicial functions.
The EU-US Agreement establishes security procedures for launching European Galileo satellites from US facilities, including access protocols, data protection measures, and technical requirements.
The EU-Ukraine Decision allows for the recognition and use of smart tachographs, setting technical requirements and establishing the European Commission as the Root Certification Authority for cryptographic materials.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/405 of 13 December 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards oenological practices
This regulation amends the EU rules on organic wine production, specifically focusing on the introduction of de-alcoholised wine production methods in organic winemaking. The changes allow certain de-alcoholisation processes for organic wines while maintaining strict technical parameters to preserve organic integrity. The regulation updates references to current wine sector legislation and clarifies permitted oenological practices.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The regulation modifies Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 by:
– Adding vacuum distillation techniques for de-alcoholised organic wine production
– Updating legal references to current wine sector regulations
– Setting specific technical parameters for de-alcoholisation processes
2. Key changes compared to previous versions:
– Introduction of partial vacuum evaporation and distillation as permitted practices
– New temperature limits (max 75°C) and filtration specifications (min 0.2 micrometers)
– Requirement for final alcohol content not exceeding 0.5% vol
Most important provisions for practical use:
1. De-alcoholisation methods for organic wines:
– Partial vacuum evaporation and distillation are now permitted
– Can be used separately or in combination
2. Technical requirements:
– Maximum temperature: 75°C
– Minimum filtration pore size: 0.2 micrometers
– Maximum final alcohol content: 0.5% vol
3. Process conditions:
– Distillation must be performed under vacuum
– Both methods must maintain organic integrity
– All other organic wine production rules remain applicable
Council Regulation (EU) 2025/407 of 24 February 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
This Regulation amends the EU’s restrictive measures (sanctions) against Syria following the fall of the al-Assad regime. It introduces significant changes to the sanctions regime by suspending various sectoral restrictions and introducing new humanitarian exemptions to support Syria’s transition and reconstruction. The regulation aims to encourage inclusive political transition while maintaining certain targeted restrictions.
The structure of the act consists of two main articles. Article 1 contains 25 amendments to Regulation 36/2012, while Article 2 covers entry into force. The key changes include:
– Suspension of multiple restrictive measures (Articles 6-13a, 21a-b, 26a)
– Expansion of humanitarian exemptions
– New provisions for personal use items
– Modified rules on frozen funds and economic resources
– Updated provisions on assistance to Syrian population
Main important provisions:
1. Suspension of multiple sectoral restrictions previously imposed on Syria, including trade, financial and transport measures
2. Broader humanitarian exemptions allowing delivery of aid and support for basic human needs through UN agencies, international organizations, and humanitarian actors
3. New allowances for personal use items for individuals traveling from the EU
4. Maintained freeze on certain funds and economic resources belonging to listed entities
5. Enhanced provisions for reconstruction, stabilization and economic recovery activities
6. Regular review requirement to monitor developments in Syria
The regulation represents a significant shift in the EU’s approach to Syria while maintaining certain targeted restrictions and oversight mechanisms.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/376 of 24 February 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan
This Council Implementing Regulation modifies the EU sanctions list regarding Sudan by removing two specific individuals from the restrictive measures regime. The act implements changes following the United Nations Security Council Committee’s decision from November 2024.
The structure of the act is straightforward and consists of two main articles and an annex. Article 1 introduces amendments to Annex I of the base Regulation (EU) 2023/2147, while Article 2 sets the entry into force provision. The Annex specifically details the deletion of two individuals from the sanctions list.
The main provisions to note are:
1. The removal of two specific individuals – Abdulrahman JUMA BARAKALLAH and Osman Mohamed HAMID – from the list of persons subject to restrictive measures.
2. The changes are made to align EU sanctions with the UN Security Council Committee’s decisions from November 2024.
3. The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all EU Member States.
4. The regulation takes effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The act represents a technical amendment to the existing sanctions regime against Sudan, specifically focusing on the delisting of two individuals from the restrictive measures framework.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/408 of 24 February 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
This Council Implementing Regulation amends the EU’s restrictive measures against Syria following the fall of al-Assad’s regime. The act suspends certain sanctions and removes six Syrian financial and aviation entities from the sanctions list, while maintaining asset freeze for the Central Bank of Syria.
The structure of the act is typical for EU implementing regulations, consisting of a preamble with 6 recitals explaining the context and reasons, two operative articles, and two annexes. The first annex lists the entities being removed from sanctions, while the second annex establishes a new list with only the Central Bank of Syria remaining under restrictions.
The main provisions include:
– Removal of five Syrian banks (Industrial Bank, Popular Credit Bank, Saving Bank, Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Central Bank of Syria) and Syrian Arab Airlines from the sanctions list
– Creation of a new Annex IIb containing only the Central Bank of Syria with frozen assets
– The changes aim to support Syria’s transition, humanitarian aid delivery, economic recovery, reconstruction and stabilization
– The regulation facilitates the return of Syrian nationals with their belongings
– The act maintains certain restrictions on the Central Bank of Syria while lifting them from other previously sanctioned entities
: This regulation has implications for Ukrainians who may have business or personal connections with Syria, as it opens new opportunities for economic cooperation while maintaining some restrictions.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/386 of 24 February 2025 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine
This Council Implementing Regulation amends the EU sanctions regime against Belarus in connection with its involvement in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The act primarily deals with updates to the list of sanctioned individuals and entities.
The regulation makes three types of changes to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006:
1. Removes two entries from the sanctions list (one duplicate entry and one deceased person)
2. Updates information and reasons for listing for 10 individuals, including government officials, judges, businessmen, and media figures
3. Modifies entries for two legal entities – Minsk Automobile Works (MAZ) and Belshina tire manufacturer
Key provisions include:
– Updated justifications for sanctions against individuals like Ivan Sakalouski (director of Akrestina detention center), Mikhail Gutseriev (prominent businessman), and Ivan Galavatyi (former head of Belaruskali)
– New details about the involvement of MAZ in supplying military trucks to Russian forces in Ukraine
– Enhanced information about Belshina’s role in supplying tires to Russian military and its profitability benefiting the Belarusian state
– Extended restrictive measures until February 28, 2026
– Clarified connections between listed persons/entities and their support for the Lukashenka regime
– Added information about the repression of civil society and democratic opposition by listed individuals and entities
The regulation maintains detailed documentation of how each listed person or entity supports the Belarusian regime or benefits from it, providing specific examples and evidence of their activities.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025.BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 4(1) – General jurisdiction – Article 24(4) – Exclusive jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Infringement action – European patent validated in Member States and in a third State – Challenge to the validity of the patent raised as a defence – International jurisdiction of the court hearing the infringement action.Case C-339/22.
Here’s a detailed analysis of the Court’s judgment:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
The judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation regarding jurisdiction in patent infringement cases. The Court ruled that when a court of a Member State is hearing a patent infringement case based on the defendant’s domicile, it retains jurisdiction even if the defendant challenges the patent’s validity, though validity issues must be decided by courts of the state that granted the patent. The Court also clarified that this regulation does not apply to courts of third countries, and EU Member State courts can rule on validity defenses regarding third-country patents without affecting those patents’ status in their home countries.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The judgment is structured around three main questions:
– Whether a court loses jurisdiction over an infringement case when validity is challenged
– Whether national procedural rules affect this jurisdiction
– How the rules apply to patents granted in non-EU countries
Key provisions include:
– Confirmation that Article 4(1) establishes general jurisdiction based on defendant’s domicile
– Clarification that Article 24(4)’s exclusive jurisdiction for validity issues doesn’t remove infringement jurisdiction
– Explanation of how courts should handle parallel validity and infringement proceedings
– Rules for handling cases involving third-country patents
3. Most important provisions for practical use:
– Courts maintain jurisdiction over infringement claims even when validity is challenged
– Courts must stay proceedings on validity issues in favor of courts where patent was granted
– For EU patents, validity must be determined by courts of the granting state
– For non-EU patents, EU courts can examine validity as a defense without affecting the patent’s status
– Courts can stay infringement proceedings pending validity decisions
– The decision clarifies that national procedural rules don’t affect these jurisdictional principles
– The judgment provides clear guidance for handling complex cross-border patent disputes
The judgment significantly clarifies jurisdictional rules in international patent litigation, making it easier for courts and practitioners to handle such cases efficiently while respecting both EU and international law principles.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025.Alphabet Inc. and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Dominant position – Article 102 TFEU – Digital markets – Digital platform – Refusal of an undertaking in a dominant position which has developed a digital platform to allow access to that platform by a third-party undertaking which has developed an app, by ensuring that platform is interoperable with that app – Assessment of whether access to a digital platform is indispensable – Effects of the conduct at issue – Objective justification – Need for the undertaking in a dominant position to develop a template for a category of apps in order to allow access – Definition of the relevant downstream market.Case C-233/23.
Here’s a detailed analysis of this Court of Justice judgment:
1. Essence of the act (3-5 sentences):
This is a landmark judgment concerning the application of EU competition law (Article 102 TFEU) to digital platforms. The case deals with Google’s refusal to allow interoperability between its Android Auto platform and a third-party app (JuicePass) for electric vehicle charging services. The Court establishes new principles for assessing abuse of dominant position in digital markets, particularly regarding platform interoperability and access requirements.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The judgment addresses five key questions regarding:
* The concept of “indispensability” for digital platform access
* Assessment of anticompetitive effects
* Objective justifications for refusing access
* Obligations of dominant platforms regarding template development
* Market definition requirements
Main changes compared to previous case law:
– Departs from the strict “indispensability” test established in Bronner (1998)
– Introduces more flexible approach for digital platforms developed for third-party use
– Establishes new framework for assessing objective justifications in digital markets
3. Key provisions for practical use:
a) Access Requirements:
– Digital platforms not developed solely for own business use can be required to grant access even if not “indispensable”
– Dominant companies must justify refusals based on technical or security concerns
b) Template Development:
– Dominant platforms may be required to develop templates for third-party access
– Can charge reasonable fees for template development
– Must provide access within reasonable timeframes
c) Market Definition:
– Competition authorities can rely on potential market identification
– Precise market definition not always required for downstream markets
– Must demonstrate potential anticompetitive effects
d) Anticompetitive Effects:
– Continued market presence of competitors doesn’t automatically preclude finding of abuse
– Need to assess whether conduct hinders competition maintenance or growth
– Must consider all relevant circumstances
This judgment significantly impacts how digital platform operators must handle third-party access requests and sets new standards for competition law enforcement in digital markets.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 February 2025.XL v Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku.References for a preliminary ruling – Freezing or reduction of remuneration in the national public administration – Measures specifically aimed at judges – Article 2 TEU – Article 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligations on Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection – Principle of judicial independence – Powers of the legislatures and executives of the Member States to set the detailed rules for determining judges’ remuneration – Possibility of derogating from those rules – Conditions.Case C-146/23.
Here’s a detailed analysis of this Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment:
1. Essence of the act in 3-5 sentences:
This is a landmark CJEU judgment that establishes key principles regarding judicial remuneration in EU Member States. The Court ruled on whether and how national legislatures and executives can determine and modify judges’ salaries while respecting judicial independence. The judgment sets out specific requirements that must be met when establishing judges’ pay and when implementing any derogations from established remuneration rules.
2. Structure and main provisions:
The judgment addresses two joined cases (C-146/23 and C-374/23) concerning judges’ remuneration in Poland and Lithuania. Its key structural elements include:
– Analysis of Court’s jurisdiction and admissibility
– Interpretation of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 2 TEU regarding judicial independence
– Establishment of two sets of requirements:
a) For determining regular judicial remuneration
b) For implementing derogations from standard remuneration rules
– Application of principles to specific cases
– Final ruling with detailed conditions
Main changes compared to previous versions:
This judgment develops and clarifies previous CJEU case law on judicial independence, particularly regarding remuneration. It provides more detailed and specific requirements than earlier judgments on this topic.
3. Most important provisions for use:
The judgment establishes several crucial requirements:
For regular determination of judicial remuneration:
– Must be provided for by law
– Rules must be objective, foreseeable, stable and transparent
– Must ensure remuneration commensurate with judicial functions
– Must be subject to effective judicial review
For derogating measures:
– Must be provided for by law
– Must be objective and transparent
– Must be justified by general interest
– Should affect broader categories of public servants, not just judges
– Must be exceptional and temporary
– Cannot undermine the commensurate nature of judicial remuneration
– Must be subject to effective judicial review
: This judgment has particular implications for Ukraine as it establishes standards that would need to be met in Ukraine’s judicial system as part of its EU accession process and ongoing judicial reforms.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America setting forth security procedures for the launch of Galileo satellites from Unites States’ territory
The Agreement establishes a framework for security procedures when launching European Galileo navigation satellites from US launch facilities. It defines technical and operational requirements, security protocols, and access procedures for European personnel at US launch sites. The Agreement represents a significant step in space cooperation between the EU and the USA.
The structure of the Agreement consists of several key components:
– Security procedures and requirements for pre-launch preparations
– Access protocols for European technical personnel at US launch facilities
– Data protection and information exchange mechanisms
– Specific technical requirements for launch operations
– Coordination procedures between EU and US authorities
– Emergency protocols and contingency measures
Main provisions that are most important for practical use:
1. Detailed security clearance procedures for EU personnel working at US launch sites
2. Technical specifications for satellite handling and integration with US launch vehicles
3. Communication protocols between EU and US control centers during launch operations
4. Data protection measures for sensitive satellite technology
5. Clear division of responsibilities between EU and US authorities during launch campaigns
6. Specific requirements for physical security of Galileo satellites while on US territory
7. Procedures for resolving technical and security issues during launch preparations
The Agreement replaces previous temporary arrangements with a permanent framework, providing more clarity and standardization in launch procedures.
Decision No 2/2025 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road of 17 January 2025 as regards the recognition of smart tachographs for the enforcement of the Agreement and the provision by the European Commission of smart tachograph certification services to Ukraine [2025/409]
The essence of the act:
This Decision establishes the recognition and use of smart tachographs under the EU-Ukraine Agreement on freight road carriage. It allows vehicles registered in both the EU and Ukraine to use advanced smart tachograph systems that provide more detailed monitoring capabilities than traditional digital tachographs. The Decision also establishes the European Commission’s role in providing certification services and cryptographic materials to Ukraine for tachograph implementation.
Structure and main provisions:
The Decision consists of 5 articles covering definitions, use of smart tachographs, type-approval procedures, installation and enforcement requirements. The key changes include allowing Ukrainian vehicles to use smart tachographs compliant with EU regulations while maintaining the option to continue using digital tachographs under AETR. The act establishes technical adaptations to include Ukraine in the EU’s smart tachograph system and recognizes the European Commission as the Root Certification Authority.
Most important provisions:
1. Smart tachographs must comply with specific requirements including automatic position recording, remote early detection of manipulation, and interface with Intelligent Transport Systems.
2. The European Commission becomes responsible for providing Ukraine with cryptographic materials for issuing tachograph cards for drivers, workshops, companies, and control authorities.
3. Installation, inspection, and enforcement provisions of EU Regulation 165/2014 apply equally to both EU member states and Ukraine.
4. Ukraine recognizes the European Commission as the single European Root Certification Authority and accepts its interoperability certificates.
5. Vehicles can use either smart tachographs or continue using digital tachographs under AETR, providing flexibility during implementation.
