Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/698
This regulation extends the existing anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate (MSG) originating in China to MSG imports consigned from Malaysia, regardless of whether they are declared as originating in Malaysia. This means that MSG imports from Malaysia will now be subject to a 39.7% anti-dumping duty, the same rate applied to Chinese MSG. The regulation also specifies that the extended duty applies to imports registered under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1976 and dismisses the exemption request from Ajinoriki MSG (M) Sdn Bhd. The regulation details how companies can request exemptions from the extended duty.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/711
This regulation renews the authorization and extends the use of a specific feed additive for animals – a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase. The regulation allows its use for weaned piglets, laying hens, minor poultry species (both laying and fattening), pigs for fattening, all Suidae species, and turkeys for fattening, and newly authorizes its use for suckling piglets. The regulation repeals previous regulations that authorized the use of this additive and establishes transitional measures and includes updated safety measures for users of the additive and premixtures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/714
This regulation authorizes the use of indigo carmine as a feed additive for cats, dogs, and ornamental fish. The regulation specifies that the colorant can be used to add or restore color in animal feedingstuffs under defined conditions. The regulation also establishes transitional measures for the current stocks and includes safety measures for users of the additive and premixtures. Maximum content levels are set at 250 mg/kg for cats and dogs, and 1,000 mg/kg for ornamental fish.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/715
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, updating Annexes V and XIV concerning the entry of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds from third countries into the EU. The changes primarily address recent outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the United Kingdom and the United States. Imports from affected zones are temporarily suspended, while imports from certain zones in Canada are reauthorized following the resolution of previous HPAI outbreaks. The regulation updates lists of zones within Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States from which imports are allowed or suspended based on the latest HPAI situation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/691
This regulation authorizes vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a novel food within the European Union. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 to include this novel food in the Union list and it specifies conditions of use and labeling requirements. The regulation grants temporary exclusive rights to Luxidum GmbH, protecting certain data related to its production. Specifically, this regulation mandates that food supplements containing this ingredient should not be consumed by infants and young children.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/688
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 concerning the novel food Schizochytrium sp. (FCC-3204) oil. The amendment expands the permitted uses of this oil to include protein products (excluding dairy analogues) intended for the general population. The regulation also grants temporary data protection to the company Fermentalg regarding specific scientific data related to this extension of use. A five-year period of data protection is granted to Fermentalg for specific scientific data submitted in support of this extension.
CJEU Judgment (European Arrest Warrant)
This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a European Arrest Warrant can be refused. The case concerns a warrant issued by Spain against a Spanish national residing in Romania for tax offenses and money laundering. The Romanian court refused to execute the warrant. The CJEU clarifies that Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 only applies when the warrant is for executing a final sentence or detention order. It cannot be invoked if the warrant is for criminal prosecution purposes. Also, Article 4(4) cannot be used to refuse a European arrest warrant if the executing Member State does not have jurisdiction to determine the facts, both conditions in Article 4(4) must apply cumulatively.
CJEU Judgment (Residence Card for Family Members)
This judgment clarifies how Member States should assess the “dependency” of a third-country national applying for a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen, specifically a direct relative in the ascending line. It clarifies the relevant timeframes for assessing dependency and states that illegal residence under national law does not automatically disqualify an applicant if the conditions for dependency are met. The judgment explicitly states that the national authorities must assess the dependency of the family member both at the time of their arrival in the host Member State and at the time of their residence card application. The judgment clarifies that documents issued in the past, even several years before the residence card application, can be used to prove the existence of dependency at the time the family member joined the Union citizen in the host Member State.
CJEU Judgment (Equal Treatment and Pensions)
This judgment examines whether a Spanish law, which calculates this pension based on the actual salary received at the time of the accident, indirectly discriminates against women who may have reduced their working hours to care for children. The Court clarified that EU law does not prevent a member state from calculating permanent incapacity pensions based on the salary received at the time of the accident, even if the employee had reduced hours for childcare. The national court needs to verify statistical data to show that a predominantly female category of workers is particularly disadvantaged.
CJEU Judgment (Debt discharge for insolvent entrepreneurs)
The Court of Justice ruled that Member States can deny debt discharge even if the dishonest conduct was towards creditors of a third party. The Court also clarified that national legislation can set objective criteria for denying debt discharge without requiring a subjective assessment of the debtor’s behavior, as long as such restrictions are well-defined and justified under national law. The judgment confirms that if an entrepreneur acts dishonestly or in bad faith towards the creditors of a company they manage, this can be grounds for denying them personal debt discharge.
CJEU Judgment (European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan))
The CJEU ruled that the EU allowances (per diems, hardship, and risk allowances) are not to be received concurrently with similar allowances paid by the staff member’s home country. The CJEU’s interpretation confirms that Member States are not required to pay allowances on top of the per diems, hardship, and risk allowances already provided by the EU for staff seconded to the EUPOL Afghanistan mission. This has financial implications for Member States, as it clarifies their cost responsibilities for seconded staff.
CJEU Judgment (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD))
The CJEU’s judgment clarifies that the 18-month period in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 is not a limitation period that extinguishes a Member State’s right to recover undue payments from a beneficiary. The general limitation period of four years, as stipulated in Regulation No 2988/95, remains applicable to the relationship between the Member State and the beneficiary. Member States retain the authority to pursue recovery of undue payments from EAFRD beneficiaries even after the 18-month period has expired. However, they must do so within the broader limitation period established by Regulation No 2988/95.
Recommendation No 1/2024 of the Specialised Committee on Energy
This recommendation focuses on enhancing the efficiency of electricity interconnectors between the EU and the UK. The Recommendation outlines steps for Transmission System Operators (TSOs) to validate concepts, develop forecasting tools, and address barriers to joint offshore energy projects. This includes creating an optimal operational timeline and developing a draft tender specification for a bordering bidding zone net position forecaster. The document outlines the new approach to MRLVC development, specifically the focus on a Common Order Book approach, the development of a bidding zone net position forecaster, and the consideration of offshore energy projects.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/698 of 10 April 2025 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/633 on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of monosodium glutamate consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/698, which extends the existing anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate (MSG) originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of MSG consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not. The regulation was adopted following an investigation that found evidence of circumvention of the original anti-dumping measures. This means that MSG is being shipped from China to Malaysia and then re-exported to the EU in an attempt to avoid paying the anti-dumping duty. As a result of this regulation, imports of MSG from Malaysia will now be subject to the same 39.7% anti-dumping duty as imports from China.
The regulation consists of 5 articles. It begins by extending the definitive anti-dumping duty to imports of MSG consigned from Malaysia. The extended duty is the anti-dumping duty of 39,7 % applicable to ‘all other companies’ in the PRC. It clarifies that the extended duty applies to imports registered under the initial investigation regulation. It directs customs authorities to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1976 and rejects the exemption request submitted by Ajinoriki MSG (M) Sdn Bhd. Finally, it outlines the procedure for companies to request an exemption from the extended duty and specifies that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The most important provisions of this regulation are those that extend the anti-dumping duty to MSG imports from Malaysia and set the duty rate at 39.7%. It also important that the duties will be collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 2 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1976. This means that importers of MSG from Malaysia will now face a significant additional cost, which could make their products less competitive in the EU market.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/711 of 10 April 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755 and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49754 as a feed additive for weaned piglets, laying hens, minor poultry species for laying and fattening, pigs for fattening of all Suidae species and turkeys for fattening, the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755 and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49754 as a feed additive for suckling piglets (holder of authorisation: AVEVE BV) and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1088/2011, (EU) No 989/2012 and (EU) No 1040/2013
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/711.
This regulation concerns the re-authorization and extension of use of a specific feed additive for animals. The additive in question is a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49755 and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Trichoderma reesei MUCL 49754. This regulation renews its use for weaned piglets, laying hens, minor poultry species (laying and fattening), pigs for fattening, all Suidae species and turkeys for fattening, and authorizes its use for suckling piglets. The regulation also repeals previous regulations that authorized the use of this additive.
The regulation consists of 5 articles and an annex.
– Article 1 provides for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for certain animal species.
– Article 2 provides for the authorisation of the additive for suckling piglets.
– Article 3 repeals Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1088/2011, (EU) No 989/2012 and (EU) No 1040/2013.
– Article 4 lays down transitional measures.
– Article 5 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation.
The Annex specifies the identification number, the name of the authorisation holder, the additive, its composition, the animal species, the minimum and maximum content, and other provisions.
The main changes introduced by this regulation include:
– The extension of the use of the feed additive to suckling piglets.
– The consolidation of previous authorisations under Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1088/2011, (EU) No 989/2012 and (EU) No 1040/2013 into a single, updated regulation.
– The inclusion of updated safety measures for users of the additive and premixtures.
The most important provisions of this act are:
– The renewed authorization and extension of use for suckling piglets, which confirms the safety and efficacy of the additive for a broader range of animals.
– The obligation for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks, as well as the requirement for personal protective equipment for users of the additive and premixtures.
– The transitional measures allowing the continued use of existing stocks produced and labelled under previous regulations, providing flexibility for feed producers and users.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/714 of 10 April 2025 concerning the authorisation of indigo carmine as a feed additive for cats, dogs and ornamental fish
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/714 authorises the use of indigo carmine as a feed additive for cats, dogs, and ornamental fish. It specifies the conditions under which indigo carmine can be used to add or restore color in animal feedingstuffs. The regulation acknowledges the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) assessment that indigo carmine is safe for these animals within specified limits, while also addressing potential risks to users through inhalation and skin contact.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states the authorization of indigo carmine as a feed additive under specific conditions. Article 2 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued use of existing stocks of indigotine (the previously authorised substance) and feed containing it, produced and labelled before specific dates, until those stocks are exhausted. Article 3 indicates the entry into force of this regulation. The Annex specifies the identification number, composition, analytical method, animal species, and maximum content levels of indigo carmine in feed. It also includes other provisions related to storage, heat treatment, and user safety. The main change introduced in this regulation is the re-evaluation and re-authorisation of indigo carmine under a new regulatory framework, with updated safety assessments and usage conditions.
The most important provisions for users include the maximum content levels of indigo carmine in complete feedingstuffs: 250 mg/kg for cats and dogs, and 1,000 mg/kg for ornamental fish. Additionally, feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks to users of the additive and premixtures. If risks cannot be eliminated, personal protective equipment for skin and breathing must be used. The regulation also mandates specific indications in the directions for use regarding storage conditions and stability to heat treatment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/728 of 8 April 2025 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, specifically Annexes V and XIV, concerning the entry into the EU of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds from third countries. The amendments address recent outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the United Kingdom and the United States, leading to temporary suspensions of imports from affected zones. Conversely, the regulation reauthorizes imports from certain zones in Canada following the resolution of previous HPAI outbreaks.
The regulation modifies Annex V, which lists third countries authorized for the entry of poultry and germinal products, and Annex XIV, which lists countries authorized for the entry of fresh poultry meat. The main changes involve updating the lists of zones within Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States from which imports are allowed or suspended based on the latest HPAI situation. For the United Kingdom and the United States, the regulation adds new zones that are subject to import restrictions due to recent HPAI outbreaks. For Canada, the regulation replaces the existing entries for several zones, reflecting the reauthorization of imports following the containment of HPAI outbreaks.
The most important provisions of this regulation relate to the specific zones listed for each country, as these determine where imports of poultry and related products are permitted from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These amendments directly impact trade conditions and the animal health status within the Union by preventing the potential spread of HPAI from affected regions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/691 of 9 April 2025 authorising the placing on the market of vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a novel food and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/691 regarding the authorization of vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a novel food.
The essence of this regulation is to authorize the placing on the market of vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a novel food within the European Union. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 to include this novel food in the Union list. The regulation specifies conditions of use, labeling requirements, and protects certain data related to its production, granting temporary exclusive rights to Luxidum GmbH.
The structure of the act is as follows:
– It starts with recitals that explain the reasons and basis for the regulation, referencing relevant EU regulations and previous actions.
– Article 1 states that vitamin D2 mushroom powder is authorized to be placed on the market within the Union and will be included in the Union list of novel foods. It also mentions that the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 is amended according to the Annex of this regulation.
– Article 2 grants Luxidum GmbH exclusive rights to place the novel food on the market for five years, with exceptions for subsequent authorizations based on different data or with Luxidum GmbH’s agreement.
– Article 3 protects the scientific data submitted by Luxidum GmbH for five years, preventing its use by subsequent applicants without agreement.
– Article 4 specifies the entry into force of the regulation.
– It includes two Annexes that amend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470, by including the specifications of the novel food.
The most important provisions of this act are:
– **Authorization of Vitamin D2 Mushroom Powder:** This regulation officially permits the sale and use of vitamin D2 mushroom powder in the EU under specific conditions.
– **Data Protection:** The regulation grants Luxidum GmbH a five-year period of data protection for their production process and stability tests. This means that other companies cannot use this data to get their own authorization during this period without Luxidum GmbH’s consent.
– **Conditions of Use:** The regulation specifies the food categories in which vitamin D2 mushroom powder can be used and sets maximum levels for its concentration in those foods.
– **Labelling Requirements:** There are specific labelling requirements to inform consumers, including a statement that food supplements containing this ingredient should not be consumed by infants and young children.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/688 of 9 April 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 as regards the conditions of use of the novel food Schizochytrium sp. (FCC-3204) oil
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/688, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 concerning the novel food Schizochytrium sp. (FCC-3204) oil. The new regulation expands the permitted uses of this oil to include protein products (excluding dairy analogues) intended for the general population. It also grants temporary data protection to the company Fermentalg regarding specific scientific data related to this extension of use.
The regulation modifies the Union list of novel foods in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470. The key change is the expansion of authorized uses for Schizochytrium sp. (FCC-3204) oil to include protein products, excluding dairy analogues, with a maximum level of 1 g/100 g. A five-year period of data protection is granted to Fermentalg, the applicant, for specific scientific data (taxonomic analysis, viable cell analysis, and a certificate of analyses of the protein products) submitted in support of this extension. This means that during this period, only Fermentalg is authorized to market the oil for use in protein products, unless another applicant obtains authorization without relying on Fermentalg’s protected data or with Fermentalg’s agreement.
The most important provisions of this regulation are those related to the expanded use of Schizochytrium sp. (FCC-3204) oil in protein products and the data protection granted to Fermentalg. Food manufacturers producing protein products, excluding dairy analogues, can now use this oil as an ingredient up to a specified limit. However, other companies wishing to use the same novel food will not be able to use the data of Fermentalg for 5 years.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2025.Ministerio Fiscal and Abogado del Estado v JMTB.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 4(4) and (6) – Grounds for optional non-execution – Condition that the acts fall within the jurisdiction of the executing Member State under its own criminal law – Conviction which is not final – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution.Case C-481/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision. The case revolves around the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by Spain against a Spanish national residing in Romania, who was convicted in Spain for tax offences and money laundering but had appealed the decision. The Romanian court refused to execute the warrant, citing reasons related to the person’s residency in Romania and the statute of limitations under Romanian law.
The structure of the judgment involves the CJEU addressing two questions raised by the Spanish court. The first question concerns whether a European arrest warrant can be refused under Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 if it wasn’t issued for the execution of a final custodial sentence, and the executing state hasn’t agreed to enforce any potential final sentence. The second question concerns whether a European arrest warrant can be refused under Article 4(4) if the executing state’s courts lack jurisdiction over the acts, even if the statute of limitations would have expired under their law. The CJEU clarifies the interpretation of Article 4(4) and Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.
The key provisions clarified are that Article 4(6) only applies when the warrant is for executing a final sentence or detention order. It cannot be invoked if the warrant is for criminal prosecution purposes, especially when a final conviction hasn’t been reached. Also, Article 4(4) cannot be used to refuse a European arrest warrant if the executing Member State does not have jurisdiction to determine the facts. The judgment emphasizes that both conditions in Article 4(4) must apply cumulatively.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2025.XXX v État belge.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Article 3 – Beneficiaries – Article 2(2)(d) – Family member – Direct relative in the ascending line of the partner of a Union citizen who is dependent on that Union citizen and/or that partner – Assessment of the condition of being ‘dependent’ – Relevant date for determining material dependence – Article 10 – Conditions for the issue of a residence card – Declaratory nature of a residence card – Submission of an application for a residence card in the host Member State several years after leaving the country of origin – Effect of a situation of illegal residence under national legislation on the assessment of the condition of being ‘dependent’.Case C-607/21.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment to help you understand its key aspects:
**1. Essence of the Act**
This judgment clarifies how Member States should assess the “dependency” of a third-country national applying for a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen, specifically a direct relative in the ascending line (e.g., a parent) of the Union citizen’s partner. It addresses situations where the application is made several years after the family member has already entered and resided in the host Member State. The Court specifies the relevant timeframes for assessing dependency and clarifies that illegal residence under national law does not automatically disqualify an applicant if the conditions for dependency are met.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from Belgium concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC, which governs the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU.
* **Article 2(2)(d):** This article defines “family member” to include dependent direct relatives in the ascending line (parents, grandparents) of the Union citizen or their spouse/partner.
* **Article 3:** This article defines to whom the Directive applies.
* **Article 7:** Outlines the conditions under which Union citizens and their family members have the right to reside in another Member State for longer than three months.
* **Article 10:** Specifies the requirements for issuing residence cards to family members who are not nationals of a Member State. It details the documents needed to prove the right of residence.
The referring court’s questions revolve around determining when and how the “dependency” of the ascending relative should be assessed, especially when there’s a significant time gap between their arrival in the host Member State and their application for a residence card.
**Key findings of the Court:**
* **Applicability of the Directive:** The Directive applies even if the Union citizen is a national of the Member State where they reside, as long as their partner (through whom the third-country national is claiming family ties) is exercising free movement rights.
* **Assessment of Dependency:** The competent national authority must consider the situation of the relative both:
* In their country of origin at the time they left to join the Union citizen.
* In the host Member State at the time the residence card application is submitted.
* **Documentary Evidence:** The applicant can submit documents from the past to prove the existence of dependency at the time of arrival in the host Member State. These documents cannot be dismissed as being too old.
* **Illegal Residence:** Illegal residence under national law does not automatically disqualify the applicant from obtaining a residence card if they can prove dependency at the relevant times and the Union citizen meets the conditions for residence.
* **Declaratory Nature of Residence Card:** The Court reiterates that a residence card is merely a document that proves that the person already has a right to reside.
*Main Provisions That May Be Important for Its Use*
1. **Dual Assessment of Dependency:** The judgment explicitly states that the national authorities must assess the dependency of the family member both at the time of their arrival in the host Member State and at the time of their residence card application. This means that the family member must demonstrate that they were dependent on the Union citizen or their partner when they initially moved to the host country and that they continue to be dependent at the time of application.
2. **Acceptance of Older Documents:** The judgment clarifies that documents issued in the past, even several years before the residence card application, can be used to prove the existence of dependency at the time the family member joined the Union citizen in the host Member State. This is crucial for applicants who may not have recent documentation readily available.
3. **Impact of Illegal Residence:** The judgment emphasizes that illegal residence under national law does not automatically disqualify an applicant from obtaining a residence card. This is a significant point, as it ensures that individuals who may have overstayed their visas or otherwise violated national immigration laws are still considered for residence if they meet the dependency requirements.
I hope this explanation is helpful.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2025.Asepeyo Mutua Colaboradora de la Seguridad Social nº 151 and KT v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7/EEC – Article 4(1) – Indirect discrimination on ground of sex – Method of calculating the pension for permanent incapacity as a result of an accident at work – Taking into account the actual remuneration on the date of the accident at work – Reduction in working hours to care for children under the age of 12.Case C-584/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment, presented as I would explain it to a journalist:
This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses the issue of equal treatment for men and women in social security, specifically concerning the calculation of pensions for permanent incapacity resulting from workplace accidents. The case examines whether a Spanish law, which calculates this pension based on the actual salary received at the time of the accident, indirectly discriminates against women who may have reduced their working hours to care for children. The court was asked to clarify if this method of calculation is in line with EU directives on equal treatment.
The structure of the judgment involves examining the applicability of EU directives and fundamental rights to the Spanish law in question. The court considers arguments about indirect discrimination, especially given that statistics show more women than men reduce working hours for childcare. The main point of contention is whether calculating the pension based on a reduced salary, due to childcare arrangements, puts women at a disadvantage compared to men. The judgment refers to earlier rulings, particularly regarding the discretion of member states in organizing social security systems, as long as they adhere to EU law on equal treatment.
The key takeaway from this judgment is that EU law does not prevent a member state from calculating permanent incapacity pensions based on the salary received at the time of the accident, even if the employee had reduced hours for childcare. However, this is conditional. National legislation must not create indirect discrimination. The national court needs to verify statistical data to show that a predominantly female category of workers is particularly disadvantaged. The Court emphasizes that if the national court finds actual disadvantage, it must also assess whether the legislation has a legitimate aim and is a proportionate measure.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2025.Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v VT and UP.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Directive (EU) 2019/1023 – Procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt – Article 20 – Access to discharge – Article 23(1) and (2) – Derogations – Natural person who has become insolvent – Conditions for access to discharge of debt – Concept of ‘dishonest or bad faith’ conduct – Conduct towards creditors of a third party.Case C-723/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-723/23, focusing on its key aspects and implications.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2019/1023, specifically concerning access to debt discharge for insolvent entrepreneurs. It addresses whether national laws can restrict or deny debt discharge based on dishonest conduct towards creditors of a third party and whether national courts must assess the subjective circumstances of the debtor. The Court emphasizes the balance between offering a “second chance” to entrepreneurs and protecting creditors from dishonest or bad faith behavior.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Scope:** The judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 20 and Article 23(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/1023, which deals with preventive restructuring frameworks, discharge of debt, and measures to increase the efficiency of insolvency procedures.
* **Key Questions:** The Spanish court sought clarification on whether national law can deny debt discharge when a debtor acted dishonestly towards creditors of a third party (e.g., a company where they were a director) and whether national courts must consider the debtor’s individual circumstances when deciding on debt discharge.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The Court of Justice ruled that Member States can deny debt discharge even if the dishonest conduct was towards creditors of a third party. The Court also clarified that national legislation can set objective criteria for denying debt discharge without requiring a subjective assessment of the debtor’s behavior, as long as such restrictions are well-defined and justified under national law.
**Main Provisions that May Be Important:**
1. **Dishonest Conduct Towards Third-Party Creditors:** The judgment confirms that if an entrepreneur acts dishonestly or in bad faith towards the creditors of a company they manage, this can be grounds for denying them personal debt discharge. This is crucial for directors and managers of companies.
2. **Objective Criteria for Denying Discharge:** Member States can establish clear, objective rules for denying debt discharge (e.g., a past finding of fault-based insolvency) without needing to delve into the specific intentions or circumstances of the debtor. This offers legal certainty but may lead to stricter application of insolvency rules.
3. **Justification Under National Law:** Any national rules restricting debt discharge must be well-defined and justified by a legitimate public interest under national law. This ensures that restrictions are not arbitrary and serve a clear purpose.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2025.NR v Ministero della Difesa and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Decision 2010/279/CFSP – European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan – Article 7(3) – Costs related to seconded staff – Allowances paid by both the European Union and the Member State to which the member of staff belongs – Concurrent – Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU – First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU – Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret a provision of EU law concerning the CFSP.Case C-238/24.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment for journalistic use:
**Essence of the Act:**
This judgment clarifies how allowances should be handled for staff seconded to the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) when both the EU and the staff member’s home country provide allowances. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was asked to interpret whether Article 7(3) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP meant that allowances paid by a Member State should be paid in addition to those paid by EUPOL, or if the EU allowances were meant to replace national allowances. The CJEU ruled that the EU allowances (per diems, hardship, and risk allowances) are not to be received concurrently with similar allowances paid by the staff member’s home country.
**Structure and Key Provisions:**
The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from an Italian court (Consiglio di Stato). The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP, which concerns the financial responsibilities for staff seconded to the EUPOL Afghanistan mission.
* **Article 2 of Decision 2010/279**: Sets out the objectives of the EUPOL Afghanistan mission, focusing on establishing sustainable and effective civilian policing arrangements under Afghan ownership.
* **Article 7 of Decision 2010/279**: Deals with staff matters, stating that Member States or EU institutions bear the costs of their seconded staff, including salaries and allowances.
* **Article 8 of Decision 2010/279**: Covers the status of EUPOL Afghanistan staff, including privileges, immunities, and the handling of claims related to secondment.
The Italian legal context involves:
* **Royal Decree No. 941/26**: Concerns allowances for State administration staff on overseas missions.
* **Law No. 108/2009**: Addresses the extension of Italian participation in international missions and the payment of mission allowances, but deducts any allowances paid directly by international bodies.
The referring court was uncertain about the interpretation of “other than” in the English version of Article 7(3) of Decision 2010/279, questioning whether it meant “in addition to” or “except.” The CJEU examined different language versions of the provision to arrive at a consistent interpretation.
**Main Provisions and Implications:**
The most important aspect of this judgment is the clarification of Article 7(3) of Decision 2010/279. The CJEU’s interpretation confirms that Member States are not required to pay allowances on top of the per diems, hardship, and risk allowances already provided by the EU for staff seconded to the EUPOL Afghanistan mission. This has financial implications for Member States, as it clarifies their cost responsibilities for seconded staff. It also has implications for the staff members themselves, as it determines the overall compensation they are entitled to receive during their mission.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2025.M. K. v Ministerstvo zemědělství.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy (CAP) – Financing, management and monitoring of the CAP – Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 – Financing by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Article 54 – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Article 3 – Recovery of amounts wrongly paid of a grant – Limitation period – Indicative time limit.Case C-657/23.
This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 on the financing, management, and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), specifically in relation to the recovery of undue payments from beneficiaries of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The case originates from the Czech Republic and involves a dispute between M.K. and the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the recovery of a wrongly paid grant.
The ruling addresses whether the 18-month time limit stipulated in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 for Member States to request recovery of undue payments from beneficiaries constitutes a strict deadline, after which the right to recover those payments lapses, or whether it is merely an indicative timeframe. The judgment clarifies the relationship between this provision and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which establishes a general four-year limitation period for proceedings related to irregularities affecting the EU’s financial interests.
The CJEU’s judgment clarifies that the 18-month period in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 is not a limitation period that extinguishes a Member State’s right to recover undue payments from a beneficiary. Instead, it primarily governs the financial relationship between the EU and the Member State concerning the allocation of financial responsibility for unrecovered amounts. The general limitation period of four years, as stipulated in Regulation No 2988/95, remains applicable to the relationship between the Member State and the beneficiary. This means that while a Member State may face financial consequences for failing to initiate recovery within the 18-month period, it is not barred from pursuing recovery from the beneficiary after that deadline, provided it does so within the four-year limitation period.
The most important aspect of this judgment is that it confirms that Member States retain the authority to pursue recovery of undue payments from EAFRD beneficiaries even after the 18-month period has expired. However, they must do so within the broader limitation period established by Regulation No 2988/95. This distinction is crucial for ensuring both the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the effective management of rural development funds.
Recommendation No 1/2024 of the Specialised Committee on Energy established by Article 8(1), point (l), of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 19 December 2024 to each Party concerning the preparation of technical procedures for the efficient use of electricity interconnectors [2025/706]
Here’s a breakdown of the Recommendation No 1/2024 of the Specialised Committee on Energy.
This recommendation focuses on enhancing the efficiency of electricity interconnectors between the EU and the UK. It addresses the development of technical procedures for Multi-region loose volume coupling (MRLVC) and aims to resolve issues identified with previous approaches, particularly concerning market manipulation risks. The Recommendation outlines steps for Transmission System Operators (TSOs) to validate concepts, develop forecasting tools, and address barriers to joint offshore energy projects.
The document is structured into several articles, each addressing specific aspects of the EU-UK energy cooperation framework.
* **Article 1** discards the Preliminary Order Books approach for MRLVC due to identified risks.
* **Article 2** recommends that each Party request its respective TSOs to commence an initial concept-validation phase prior to producing the single set of initial draft technical procedures for MRLVC. This includes creating an optimal operational timeline and developing a draft tender specification for a bordering bidding zone net position forecaster.
* **Article 3** focuses on joint and hybrid offshore projects, directing TSOs to investigate barriers resulting from existing trading arrangements or MRLVC and propose necessary changes to support these projects.
* **Article 4** emphasizes regular oversight and stakeholder engagement in the development process.
* **Article 5** coordinates communication between the Parties and their TSOs, setting a deadline of 11 months for completing the outlined work.
* **Article 6** recommends that the Parties request their respective TSOs to seek an informal opinion of the UK national energy regulators and ACER regarding their work completed with respect to Articles 2 and 3, to be delivered within one month of the delivery of the TSOs joint report.
The most important provisions are those outlining the new approach to MRLVC development, specifically the focus on a Common Order Book approach, the development of a bidding zone net position forecaster, and the consideration of offshore energy projects. These provisions set the stage for future technical procedures and aim to ensure the secure and efficient operation of both the EU and UK electricity markets.
