Review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/637
This regulation updates the rules for importing certain goods into the EU, specifically those of animal origin. It revises the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and Harmonized System (HS) codes for items like dairy products, food additives, collagen casings, minced meat, and composite products containing gelatine capsules. These updates clarify what’s needed for importing these products, including which countries they can come from and what certifications are required. The regulation also simplifies the process for some composite products by removing the need for a private attestation if they contain only gelatine capsules not derived from ruminant bones. Finally, it clarifies that raw materials for meat products can be sourced from establishments producing minced meat, meat preparations, or mechanically separated meat.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/826
This regulation fixes an error in a previous regulation (EU) 2025/261) which imposed anti-dumping duties on biodiesel from China. The amendment adds additional TARIC codes to the existing CN codes for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). This addition improves the monitoring of SAF imports and ensures anti-dumping measures are correctly applied.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/812
This regulation officially cancels the traditional term “Vino de Pago Calificado.” The request to cancel was made by Spain, and since there were no objections, the Commission approved the removal of this term from the register of protected traditional terms for wine.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/828
This regulation corrects errors and clarifies the provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/500, which imposed countervailing duties on aluminum road wheels imported from Morocco. The key change involves adjusting the residual subsidy rate applicable to all other imports originating in Morocco, setting it at 31.45%. It also clarifies the conditions under which individual countervailing duty rates can be applied to specific companies. To qualify for these lower, company-specific rates, importers must present a commercial invoice with a specific declaration to customs authorities, or the higher residual duty will apply.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/825
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 concerning the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status within the Union Customs Code. The key change mandates that customs authorities who are consulted during an AEO application process must respond within a specified timeframe, ensuring applications aren’t approved without proper assessment. Specifically, it ensures that consulted customs authorities respond to mandatory consultations within 80 days.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/807
This regulation grants Union authorization for the biocidal product ‘C(M)IT/MIT & Glutaraldehyde Formulations’. The product is approved for use as a preservative and slimicide in industrial applications such as liquid-cooling systems and paper production from May 19, 2025, to April 30, 2030. The authorization includes specific conditions, limitations, and risk mitigation measures for its use, which are detailed in the annex to the regulation.
Review of CJEU Judgment in Case C-573/22
This judgment clarifies how to determine if a tax exemption constitutes illegal state aid. The case examines a Polish law exempting railway infrastructure from property tax. The Court provides guidance on assessing whether such an exemption gives an unfair advantage to certain businesses. The Court outlines a step-by-step approach to determine selectivity: 1) Identify the Reference Framework; 2)Determine Derogation; 3) Justification. Ultimately, the Court suggests that such an exemption is not necessarily a selective advantage.
Review of CJEU Judgment in Case C-181/23
The Court of Justice ruled that Malta’s investor citizenship program, specifically the 2020 scheme, violates EU law. The Court found that the scheme, which offered citizenship in exchange for predetermined payments or investments without requiring a genuine link to the country, amounts to a “commercialization” of EU citizenship and undermines the integrity of the EU system. The scheme’s transactional nature and the minimal residence requirement were key factors in the Court’s decision. The Court emphasizes that the payments and investments were the primary consideration for granting citizenship.
Review of CJEU Judgment in Case C-452/23
This judgment clarifies the rules for modifying concession contracts under EU law, specifically Directive 2014/23/EU. It addresses a situation where a concession, initially awarded without a competitive tender to an “in-house” entity, is later modified after that entity loses its “in-house” status. The Court clarifies whether such a modification can occur without a new tendering process, particularly when the need for modification arises from unforeseeable circumstances.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/637 of 29 January 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292 as regards the requirements for the entry into the Union of certain dairy products, certain food additives derived from animals, collagen casings, minced meat, meat preparations, mechanically separated meat and composite products containing gelatine capsules
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/637 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292, focusing on the requirements for the entry of specific goods into the European Union. The amendments aim to ensure consistency with existing regulations, particularly regarding products of animal origin. The regulation updates the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and Harmonized System (HS) codes for certain dairy products, food additives, collagen casings, minced meat, meat preparations, mechanically separated meat, and composite products containing gelatine capsules, clarifying import conditions and certification requirements.
The regulation modifies Articles 3, 13, 15, 21, and 22 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292. It updates the CN/HS codes for products of animal origin that may only enter the Union from listed third countries or regions. It also specifies that certain products must originate from establishments appearing on lists drawn up in accordance with Article 127(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. Furthermore, it clarifies that the raw materials for meat products can also be obtained from establishments producing minced meat, meat preparations, or mechanically separated meat. Finally, it removes the requirement for a private attestation for composite products containing only gelatine capsules not derived from ruminant bones.
The most important provisions of this regulation are the updated lists of CN/HS codes for various products of animal origin, as these determine the specific import conditions and certification requirements. Food business operators need to ensure that their products comply with these updated codes and that their suppliers are listed in the appropriate registers. The clarification regarding raw materials for meat products and the exemption from private attestation for certain composite products also simplify import procedures for specific goods.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/826 of 29 April 2025 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/261 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People’s Republic of China
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/826 serves to correct a previous regulation, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/261, which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on biodiesel imports originating from China. The new regulation aims to enhance the monitoring of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) by adding additional TARIC codes to specific CN codes. This adjustment is crucial for tracking imports of SAF and ensuring effective implementation of the anti-dumping measures.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and the reasons for the correction, followed by two articles. Article 1 amends Article 1(1) of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/261 by including additional TARIC codes for monitoring sustainable aviation fuels under specific CN codes. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The most important provision of this regulation is the amendment to Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/261. This amendment adds TARIC codes to CN codes 2710 19 11, 2710 19 15, 2710 19 21, 2710 19 25, and 2710 19 29 for monitoring imports of sustainable aviation fuels. This change is essential for customs authorities and businesses involved in the import of biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuels, as it ensures better monitoring of SAF flows and compliance with anti-dumping measures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/812 of 28 April 2025 approving the cancellation of the traditional term Vino de pago calificado in accordance with Article 115(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/812 approves the cancellation of the traditional term ‘Vino de Pago Calificado’. The cancellation request was submitted by Spain and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Since no objections were received, the Commission has approved the cancellation and will remove the term from the electronic register of protected traditional terms.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally approves the cancellation of the traditional term ‘Vino de Pago Calificado’. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce changes compared to previous versions but implements the cancellation procedure as outlined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34.
The most important provision of this act is Article 1, which definitively cancels the traditional term ‘Vino de Pago Calificado’. This means that this term can no longer be used within the European Union under the protection afforded to traditional terms for wine.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/828 of 28 April 2025 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/500 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain aluminium road wheels originating in Morocco
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/828 serves to correct errors and clarify provisions within Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/500, which imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain aluminium road wheels originating in Morocco. The amending regulation adjusts the residual subsidy rate applicable to all other imports originating in Morocco and clarifies the conditions under which individual countervailing duty rates apply to specific companies. These adjustments aim to address concerns regarding potential circumvention of duties and ensure fair application of countervailing measures.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles: Article 1 details the amendments to specific recitals and articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/500, and Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force of the amending regulation. The main changes include:
* **Recital 553 Amendment:** Replaces the original recital to emphasize that the residual subsidy rate should account for potential support from the Government of China attributable to the Government of Morocco for new exporting producers.
* **Recital 554 Amendment:** Updates the table to set the residual subsidy rate at 31.45%, aligning it with the highest subsidy rate of a cooperating company.
* **Recital 705 Amendment:** Modifies the table to set the definitive countervailing duty for all other imports originating in Morocco at 31.4%.
* **Article 1(2) Amendment:** Replaces the original paragraph to specify the definitive countervailing duty rates for individual companies and sets the rate for all other imports originating in Morocco at 31.4%.
* **Article 1(3) Amendment:** Replaces the original paragraph to clarify the conditions for applying individual countervailing duty rates, requiring a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration to be presented to customs authorities.
The most important provisions for practical use are the revised duty rates and the conditions for applying individual rates. Specifically, importers need to be aware that the residual duty rate for all other imports from Morocco is now set at 31.4%. Furthermore, to benefit from the lower, company-specific duty rates, importers must present a valid commercial invoice with the declaration as specified in the amended Article 1(3). Failure to provide this invoice will result in the application of the highest duty rate.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/825 of 28 April 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code
Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/825:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, which lays down detailed rules for implementing the Union Customs Code. The key change concerns the consultation process between customs authorities of different Member States when an economic operator applies for Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status. The amendment aims to ensure that consulted customs authorities respond to mandatory consultations within a specific timeframe, addressing the risk of AEO status being granted without proper assessment due to a lack of response from a consulted authority.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Title:** Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/825 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code.
* **Article 1:** This is the core of the amendment. It replaces paragraph 3 of Article 31 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. The new text explicitly requires the consulted customs authority to respond within the time-limit set by the competent customs authority. It also sets an overall deadline of 80 days for the completion of the consultation process.
* **Article 2:** Specifies the entry into force of the regulation, which is the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It also states that the regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
The most important provision is the amended Article 31(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. This change introduces a mandatory response requirement for consulted customs authorities in AEO application processes. This means that if a customs authority is asked to provide information or conduct checks related to an AEO applicant operating in their Member State, they *must* respond within the set deadlines. This aims to improve the reliability and thoroughness of the AEO approval process across the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/807 of 28 April 2025 granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product C(M)IT/MIT & Glutaraldehyde Formulations in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/807, which grants a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product named ‘C(M)IT/MIT & Glutaraldehyde Formulations’. The product is authorized for use as a preservative and slimicide in various industrial applications, such as in liquid-cooling systems, paper production, and other industrial processes. The authorisation is valid from 19 May 2025 to 30 April 2030. The regulation specifies the conditions, limitations, and risk mitigation measures associated with the use of this biocidal product.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation to Solenis Switzerland GmbH for the biocidal product ‘C(M)IT/MIT & Glutaraldehyde Formulations’ and specifies the authorisation number and validity period. Article 2 states the regulation’s entry into force. The annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics, including administrative information, product composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, general directions for use, and other relevant information.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are in the Annex, which details the authorized uses of the biocidal product, including specific instructions, risk mitigation measures, and conditions for storage and disposal. It specifies the target organisms, application methods, rates, and frequency for each authorized use. It also outlines the necessary protective equipment and measures to minimize risks to human health and the environment.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 April 2025.E. sp. z o.o. v Prezydent Miasta Mielca.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Aid granted by a Member State – Article 107(1) TFEU – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Selectivity of a tax measure – Criteria for assessment – Determination of the reference framework – Property tax – Exemption for land, buildings and structures forming part of railway infrastructure.Case C-453/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment, presented as I would explain it to a journalist:
**1. Essence of the Act**
This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies how to determine if a tax exemption constitutes illegal state aid. The case specifically examines a Polish law that exempts land, buildings, and structures related to railway infrastructure from property tax if they are made available to rail carriers. The Court provides guidance on assessing whether such an exemption gives an unfair advantage to certain businesses and distorts competition within the EU’s internal market. Ultimately, the Court suggests that such an exemption is not necessarily a selective advantage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment addresses a request from a Polish court regarding the interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which prohibits state aid that distorts competition. The case revolves around a Polish company, E. sp. z o.o., which was denied a property tax exemption by the Mayor of Mielec. The Mayor argued that the exemption constituted illegal state aid because it hadn’t been pre-approved by the European Commission.
The Court’s analysis focuses on the concept of “selectivity.” To be considered illegal state aid, a tax measure must selectively favor certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. The Court outlines a step-by-step approach to determine selectivity:
* **Identify the Reference Framework:** This is the “normal” tax system in the Member State.
* **Determine Derogation:** Does the tax measure deviate from this normal system, creating a difference between operators in comparable situations?
* **Justification:** If there is a deviation, can the Member State justify it based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system?
The Court emphasizes that Member States have autonomy in direct taxation, and general, abstract tax exemptions are usually considered part of the normal tax regime. However, this isn’t the case if the exemption is inherently linked to specific characteristics of a narrow category of undertakings.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use**
The most crucial aspect of this judgment is the clarification of how to assess the “selectivity” of a tax measure. The Court provides a structured approach for national courts and authorities to follow:
* **Defining the Reference Framework:** The judgment stresses the importance of accurately defining the “normal” tax system. This includes not just the tax base and rates, but also existing exemptions.
* **General vs. Targeted Exemptions:** The Court distinguishes between general, abstract exemptions (which are less likely to be considered state aid) and those that are effectively targeted at a specific group of companies due to their inherent characteristics.
* **Justification:** Even if a measure is initially considered selective, the Member State can justify it by demonstrating that it stems from the logic of the overall tax system.
This judgment offers significant guidance for Member States when designing tax policies and for businesses seeking to understand whether a tax benefit they receive could be challenged as illegal state aid.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 April 2025.European Commission v Republic of Malta.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 20 TFEU – Citizenship of the Union – Article 4(3) TEU – Principle of sincere cooperation – Principle of mutual trust between the Member States – Grant of the nationality of a Member State – Special relationship of solidarity and good faith – Operation of an investor citizenship scheme – Naturalisation in exchange for predetermined payments or investments – Transactional nature of the naturalisation scheme, which amounts to the ‘commercialisation’ of Union citizenship.Case C-181/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment in Case C-181/23, designed for clarity and understanding:
This judgment addresses whether Malta’s investor citizenship program (specifically, the 2020 scheme) violates EU law. The European Commission argued that by offering citizenship in exchange for predetermined payments or investments, without requiring a genuine link to the country, Malta undermines the essence of EU citizenship and breaches the principle of sincere cooperation among Member States. The Court ultimately agreed with the Commission, finding Malta in violation of its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
**Structure and Key Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the Commission’s action against Malta, the specific Maltese laws and regulations in question (the 2020 investor citizenship scheme), and the pre-litigation procedure (the exchange of letters and opinions between the Commission and Malta).
* **Legal Context:** It summarizes relevant articles from the EU and FEU Treaties, Declaration No. 2 on nationality, and the Edinburgh Decision, as well as relevant Maltese law.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It details the arguments presented by both the Commission and Malta. The Commission argued that Malta’s scheme undermines the integrity of EU citizenship. Malta countered that it has the sovereign right to determine its nationality laws and that its scheme is legitimate and well-regulated.
* **Findings of the Court:** This is the core of the judgment. The Court reviews relevant case law, emphasizes the importance of Union citizenship, and explains why Malta’s scheme is incompatible with EU law.
* **Operative part:** The Court declares that Malta has failed to fulfill its obligations under EU law and orders Malta to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on the 2020 investor citizenship scheme, which allowed foreign investors to obtain Maltese nationality (and thus EU citizenship) by meeting certain financial requirements (investments, donations) and a minimal residence requirement.
The Court found that this scheme, because of its transactional nature, amounts to a “commercialization” of EU citizenship. This is because the Court considered that the payments and investments were the primary consideration for granting citizenship, with the residence requirement being insufficient to establish a genuine link between the applicant and Malta.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
* **Paragraphs 81-83:** Clarify that while Member States have the power to define conditions for granting nationality, this power must be exercised in compliance with EU law. There is no exception for cases involving the granting of nationality (as opposed to the loss of nationality).
* **Paragraphs 95-101:** Explain the core reasoning behind the Court’s decision. The Court emphasizes that Union citizenship is based on common values and mutual trust. A scheme that essentially sells citizenship undermines this trust and the very nature of Union citizenship.
* **Paragraphs 102-121:** Analyze the specific features of the Maltese scheme and explain why the Court considers it a “transactional” scheme that commercializes citizenship. The Court focuses on the importance of payments and investments, the minimal residence requirement, and the limited scope of the eligibility checks.
**** This judgment has significant implications for any EU Member State operating similar investor citizenship schemes. It confirms that the EU has the power to scrutinize these schemes and that they can be found to violate EU law if they undermine the essence of Union citizenship. This could affect Ukrainians seeking alternative citizenship within the EU.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 April 2025.Fastned Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v Die Autobahn GmbH des Bundes.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Concessions – Concessions awarded to an in-house entity – Directive 2014/23/EU – Article 43(1)(c) – Modification of the concession on a date on which the concessionaire no longer has the status of an in-house entity – Modification ‘the need’ for which was ‘brought about’ by unforeseeable circumstances – Directive 89/665/EEC – Indirect review of the initial award of a concession.Case C-452/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-452/23, concerning the modification of concession contracts.
**Essence of the Act**
This judgment clarifies the rules for modifying concession contracts under EU law, specifically Directive 2014/23/EU. It addresses a situation where a concession, initially awarded without a competitive tender to an “in-house” entity (an entity controlled by the contracting authority), is later modified after that entity loses its “in-house” status. The Court clarifies whether such a modification can occur without a new tendering process, particularly when the need for modification arises from unforeseeable circumstances. The judgment also touches upon the possibility of indirectly challenging the initial concession award when reviewing a later modification.
**Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment interprets Article 43(1)(c) of Directive 2014/23/EU, which allows for the modification of concessions without a new award procedure if certain conditions are met:
* The need for modification is due to unforeseeable circumstances.
* The modification doesn’t alter the overall nature of the concession.
* Any increase in value remains within specified limits.
The Court addresses the question of whether these conditions apply even if the concession was initially awarded to an “in-house” entity without a competitive tender and the entity subsequently lost that status.
The judgment also considers the interplay between Directive 2014/23/EU and Directive 89/665/EEC, which governs review procedures in public procurement. It clarifies whether the lawfulness of the initial concession award can be challenged indirectly when reviewing a later modification, especially after the deadline for directly challenging the initial award has passed.
**Key Provisions for Practical Use**
1. **Modification of Concessions Initially Awarded to In-House Entities:** The Court rules that Article 43(1)(c) *can* apply even if the concession was initially awarded to an in-house entity without a tender, and that entity later lost that status. This means that if the conditions of Article 43(1)(c) are met (unforeseeable circumstances, no alteration of the concession’s nature, and adherence to value limits), the concession can be modified without a new tendering process.
2. **Indirect Review of Initial Award:** The Court states that Member States are *not* required to allow national courts to review the lawfulness of the *initial* concession award indirectly when reviewing a modification if the deadline for challenging the initial award directly has passed. This reinforces the principle of legal certainty.
3. **Definition of “Need” for Modification:** The Court clarifies that the “need” for modification must be directly linked to the unforeseeable circumstances. The circumstances must require adapting the initial concession to ensure its proper performance can continue. The modification isn’t justified simply because the original contract didn’t anticipate the new situation.
4. **Overall Nature of Concession:** Any modification must not alter the overall nature of the concession. The Court emphasizes that the fundamental type of concession should not be changed.
