Review of the EU legislation for 09/05/2025

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/880 of 25 February 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/287 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards specific provisions contained in the Interim Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile

Okay, let’s look at this Commission Delegated Regulation.

This legal act, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/880, serves to update an existing piece of EU law, Regulation (EU) 2019/287, which sets out the general rules for the EU to use trade defence measures like safeguard clauses under its various trade agreements. Specifically, this new regulation incorporates certain unique provisions on bilateral safeguards that are contained within the recently concluded Interim Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile. The purpose is to ensure transparency and clarity by listing these specific EU-Chile rules within the framework of the general EU regulation.

The structure of this Delegated Regulation is quite straightforward. It begins with a preamble explaining the context and the need for the update, referencing the legal basis in the Treaty and Regulation (EU) 2019/287. The core of the act is contained in just two articles. Article 1 is the operative provision, stating that the detailed text provided in the Annex of this Delegated Regulation is to be added to the Annex of the original Regulation (EU) 2019/287. Article 2 simply specifies when the regulation enters into force. The crucial part is the Annex itself, which explicitly lists the relevant articles from the EU-Chile Interim Trade Agreement concerning bilateral safeguard measures. This regulation doesn’t alter the main body of Regulation (EU) 2019/287 but rather supplements its Annex by adding the specific rules that apply *only* in the context of the trade relationship with Chile, as foreseen and permitted by the original regulation.

For businesses, traders, and authorities involved in EU-Chile trade, the most important provisions are those detailed in the Annex, as these are the specific rules that apply to bilateral safeguard measures under the Interim Trade Agreement. Key among these are the definition of the ‘transition period’ during which safeguards can be applied (Article 5.9(b) of the Agreement), the rules governing the level of customs duties when a safeguard measure is in place or removed (Articles 5.10.2(b)(ii) and 5.11.2), and the requirement for progressive liberalisation of measures lasting longer than a year (Article 5.11.3). The limitations on applying multiple safeguard measures on the same good (Article 5.14) are also significant. Furthermore, the Annex includes specific rules for applying safeguards to the EU’s outermost regions (Article 5.15), using a standard of ‘serious deterioration’ rather than ‘serious injury’, and procedural details for investigations, such as the criteria for determining industry support (Article 5.17.2), the evidence needed to show a causal link between increased imports and harm (Article 5.18.3(a)), and the maximum 12-month duration for investigations (Article 5.18.5). The provision allowing for documents in English during safeguard procedures, with a later translation requirement (Article 5.22), is also a practical detail for interested parties.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/878 of 3 February 2025 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2059, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2060 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1577 as regards the technical details of back-testing and profit and loss attribution requirements, the criteria for assessing the modellability of risk factors, and the treatment of foreign-exchange risk and commodity risk in the non-trading book

This Commission Delegated Regulation introduces targeted updates to existing technical rules governing how banks calculate their capital requirements for market risk, specifically under the advanced internal model approach. It adjusts provisions related to the testing of internal models, the assessment of whether market data is sufficient for modelling certain risks, and the treatment of foreign exchange and commodity risks held outside a bank’s main trading book. These changes are necessary to align EU law with recent amendments to the core banking regulation (CRR) and international standards.

The act itself is structured as a single legal instrument that amends three distinct Commission Delegated Regulations: (EU) 2022/2059, (EU) 2022/2060, and (EU) 2023/1577.
Regarding Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2059, which covers back-testing and profit and loss attribution (PLA), the key changes clarify how the results of statistical tests (Spearman and Kolmogorov-Smirnov) relate to the classification of trading desks into ‘zones’ (green, yellow, orange, red) based on the closeness of their theoretical and hypothetical profit and loss figures. It explicitly defines what ‘close’ and ‘sufficiently close’ mean in the context of these zones. Furthermore, the formula for calculating the additional capital requirement imposed when a trading desk fails the PLA test is updated to reference definitions now located directly in the main CRR text, and the aggregation formula previously in this regulation has been removed as it is now also in the CRR.
For Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2060, which sets criteria for assessing the modellability of risk factors, a new requirement is added concerning the documentation institutions must maintain when using market data from third-party vendors. Institutions must now specifically document, for each vendor, how many risk factors were deemed modellable based on their data and perform a materiality assessment of these factors.
Finally, concerning Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1577, which deals with foreign exchange and commodity risk in the non-trading book, the amendments introduce requirements for institutions to identify positions arising purely from currency translation risk when calculating market risk on a consolidated basis. It also mandates that institutions’ internal policies must clearly document how non-trading book positions subject to foreign exchange or commodity risk are assigned to specific trading desks, particularly whether they go to desks exclusively managing non-trading book positions or those managing both trading and non-trading book positions, and the rationale behind such assignments if both approaches are used.

For banks operating under the alternative internal model approach for market risk, the most important provisions are those that directly impact their capital calculations and internal processes. This includes the clarified interpretation of the PLA zone classifications and the updated reference for the PLA additional capital requirement calculation, which are crucial for managing potential capital add-ons. The new documentation requirement for third-party data used in modellability assessments is also significant, as it imposes a specific compliance burden and supports supervisory review of the data sources underpinning their models. Additionally, the rules for non-trading book foreign exchange and commodity risk are vital, requiring clear identification of translation risk on consolidation and demanding detailed internal policies on how these positions are allocated to trading desks, ensuring transparency and consistency in risk management and capital calculation for these specific exposures.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/881 of 7 May 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2019/1085 and (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance 1-methylcyclopropene

This Commission Implementing Regulation amends previous EU legislation concerning the active substance 1-methylcyclopropene, which is used in plant protection products. Its main purpose is to expand the permitted uses of this substance beyond post-harvest applications. Following a scientific assessment, the regulation removes a specific restriction, thereby allowing for new pre-harvest uses in the field.

The structure of this regulation is straightforward, consisting of three articles and an Annex. Article 1 and Article 2 are the core operative provisions, amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1085 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, respectively. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date. The Annex details the substantive changes by replacing the ‘Specific provisions’ text for 1-methylcyclopropene in the Annexes of both amended regulations. The key change compared to the previous versions is the removal of the restriction that limited the use of 1-methylcyclopropene *only* to post-harvest storage in sealable warehouses.

For those involved in the use of plant protection products containing 1-methylcyclopropene, the most important provisions are found in the Annex. The removal of the post-harvest storage restriction means that pre-harvest in-field uses, specifically via orchard spray fed by a direct injection system, are now permitted under the conditions of approval. It is also vital to note the requirement for the applicant to provide confirmatory information by 27 May 2027. This information concerns the presence and potential risks of methallyl alcohol in soil and water, as well as the impact of water treatment processes on residues in drinking water. Furthermore, Member States are still required to pay particular attention to groundwater protection and ensure appropriate risk mitigation measures are in place.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/854 of 7 May 2025 concerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2026, 2027 and 2028 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/989

Okay, let’s look at this Commission Implementing Regulation.

This Regulation establishes the European Union’s coordinated control programme for monitoring pesticide residues in food for the years 2026, 2027, and 2028. Its main goal is to ensure that maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in food of plant and animal origin are being complied with across the Union. It also aims to gather data to assess consumer exposure to these residues. This programme is a continuation of previous monitoring efforts, building on lessons learned and scientific advice.

The structure of the Regulation is straightforward. It starts with introductory recitals explaining the background and necessity of the programme. The core obligations are laid out in four articles. Article 1 mandates Member States to take and analyse samples according to the lists in Annex I and the sampling requirements in Annex II. Article 2 sets out the rules for reporting the analytical results to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), including details on how to report complex residue definitions. Article 3 repeals the previous implementing regulation (EU) 2024/989, ensuring a smooth transition by specifying that the old regulation still applies to samples tested in 2025. Article 4 sets the entry into force date as 1 January 2026. The two Annexes are crucial: Annex I lists the specific products (plant and animal) and the pesticide/product combinations that must be analysed each year, while Annex II details the minimum number of samples each Member State must take, including specific requirements for organic products and foods for infants and young children, and outlines the analytical requirements. Compared to the previous version, the main change is the specific list of products and pesticide/product combinations for the new three-year cycle (2026-2028) and the repeal of the prior regulation covering the preceding period.

For practical use, the most important provisions are found in Article 1 and the Annexes. Article 1 directly imposes the obligation on Member States to conduct the sampling and analysis. Annex I is critical as it provides the definitive list of *what* needs to be sampled and analysed in *which* year – specifying products like oranges, apples, wheat grain, cow’s milk, and the hundreds of pesticide residues to look for in each. Annex II is equally vital, detailing *how many* samples each Member State must take (based on population, with minimums), including specific requirements for vulnerable groups (infant/young children food) and production methods (organic). It also provides important details on analytical methods and reporting formats, ensuring comparability of data across the EU. The requirement in Article 2 to report results for individual components of complex residue definitions is also a key detail for laboratories and reporting authorities.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA v WE and VX.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Consumer credit agreements – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 3(1) – Acceleration clause – Judicial review – No national legislation governing the acceleration clause – Criteria for assessing unfairness.Joined Cases C-6/24 and C-231/24.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union provides important clarification on how national courts should assess the fairness of acceleration clauses in consumer personal loan agreements under EU law. It confirms that when determining if such a clause is unfair, courts must consider whether the clause itself offers the consumer a chance to remedy a payment default and avoid the loan being called in, even if national law doesn’t specifically mandate this for personal loans. The judgment also guides national courts on evaluating the adequacy of the time period given to the consumer to make good on the default.

The judgment follows the standard structure for a preliminary ruling, outlining the relevant EU and national legal context, the facts of the underlying disputes that prompted the questions, the Court’s analysis of those questions based on existing EU law and case-law, and finally, the operative ruling. The core of the judgment lies in its interpretation of Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. It builds upon previous rulings concerning acceleration clauses, notably clarifying that the criteria for assessing unfairness, such as the existence of means for the consumer to avoid or remedy acceleration, are part of a holistic assessment by the national court based on all circumstances, rather than requiring a specific national legal provision for the particular contract type.

The most important provisions of this judgment for practical application are found in its answers to the questions referred. Firstly, the Court explicitly states that for the purpose of assessing the unfairness of an acceleration clause in a personal loan agreement, national courts *can* take into account whether the clause itself allows the consumer to avoid or remedy the acceleration. This possibility does *not* need to be established by a specific rule of national law applicable to personal loan agreements. Secondly, the judgment clarifies that it is for the national court to determine if the means offered to the consumer to avoid or remedy acceleration are “adequate and effective.” In doing so, the court must consider whether the period granted to the consumer to make the overdue payment is sufficient in practical terms. A particularly relevant factor for the national court in this assessment is the existence of provisions in national legislation that provide for similar cure periods in comparable contractual relationships, such as the one-month period required by Spanish law for mortgage loan agreements.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.L. s.c. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 143(1)(b) – Exemptions on importation – Directive 2006/79/EC – Small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries – Consignee residing in a Member State other than the Member State of importation.Case C-405/24.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union provides a definitive interpretation of EU VAT law regarding the exemption for small, non-commercial consignments imported from third countries. It clarifies that this exemption applies to packages sent by private individuals to other private individuals residing anywhere within the European Union, not just in the specific Member State where the goods first enter the EU territory. The Court found that national legislation limiting this exemption only to recipients residing in the importing Member State is contrary to EU law.

The judgment is structured typically for a preliminary ruling. It begins by identifying the referring court and the national proceedings, followed by a detailed presentation of the relevant European Union and national legal context, citing Directives 2006/112/EC and 2006/79/EC, as well as earlier related acts and a relevant customs regulation (Regulation 1186/2009). It then describes the national dispute and the question posed by the Polish court. The core of the judgment is the Court’s assessment, where it analyses the wording, context, and purpose of the relevant EU provisions. It concludes by providing a clear ruling answering the national court’s question. The judgment clarifies the scope of the exemption as established by Directive 2006/79, which replaced Directive 78/1035, confirming the long-standing intent of the EU legislature.

The most important provision clarified by this judgment is Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/79, read together with Article 143(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112. The Court’s interpretation hinges on the phrase “to other private persons in a Member State” in Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/79. The judgment explicitly states that this phrase means in *any* Member State, not exclusively the Member State of importation. This means that customs authorities in any Member State must grant the VAT exemption for qualifying small, non-commercial consignments from third countries, regardless of whether the final recipient lives in that specific Member State or another one within the EU. This interpretation ensures a uniform application of the exemption across the Union.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Prisum Healthcare S.R.L. v Autoritatea Vamală Română.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Headings 2106 and 2202 – Food supplement in liquid form.Case C-252/24.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union provides a definitive interpretation of the European Union’s customs rules for classifying certain liquid food preparations. Specifically, it clarifies whether a liquid food supplement, intended to be consumed by drinking in small doses, should be classified under heading 2106, which covers miscellaneous edible preparations, or heading 2202, which covers beverages. The Court concludes that the liquid form, if suitable for consumption by drinking, places such a product under the beverages heading, 2202.

The judgment follows the standard structure for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice. It begins by identifying the national court that asked the question and the parties involved in the national dispute. It then sets out the relevant legal context, detailing the provisions of the Harmonised System (HS) and the Combined Nomenclature (CN), including relevant Explanatory Notes and Additional Notes, as well as referring to Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements. The core of the judgment is the Court’s analysis of the question referred by the national court, applying the general rules for interpreting the CN and previous case law, notably the *Dr Ritter* judgment concerning the definition of “beverage” and the *Swiss Caps* judgment regarding food supplements in capsule form. The judgment does not introduce new legislation but clarifies the application of existing rules, particularly reinforcing the principle that the objective characteristics of a product, such as its form and intended method of consumption, are decisive for tariff classification. It distinguishes the classification of liquid food supplements from solid forms and clarifies that the marketing description “food supplement” or specific health claims are not the primary criteria for classification under the CN.

For practical use, the most important provision of this judgment is the clear rule established for liquid food supplements. If a liquid preparation is suitable and intended for consumption by drinking, even in small quantities like spoonfuls, its classification is determined by its nature as a beverage under heading 2202 of the CN. This applies even if the product is marketed as a food supplement, contains various nutrients, and is intended for specific health benefits. The judgment emphasizes that the liquid form, enabling consumption by drinking, is an objective characteristic that places it within the scope of heading 2202, thereby excluding it from the residual heading 2106 for miscellaneous food preparations. This provides clarity for customs authorities and businesses on how to classify such products for import and export purposes within the EU.

Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 8 mai 2025.#Commission européenne contre République portugaise.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Marché unique numérique – Droits d’auteur et droits voisins – Directive (UE) 2019/790 – Absence de transposition et de communication des mesures de transposition – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Sanctions pécuniaires – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire et d’une astreinte – Désistement partiel.#Affaire C-211/23.

Here is a description of the Court’s judgment:

This judgment concerns an action brought by the European Commission against Portugal for failing to transpose and notify the measures for implementing the EU Copyright Directive (Directive 2019/790) into national law by the required deadline. The Commission sought a declaration of infringement and financial penalties, specifically a lump sum and a daily penalty payment, under EU law provisions designed to ensure timely transposition of directives. The core issue is whether Portugal met its obligation and, if not, what financial consequences should follow, even though Portugal eventually transposed the directive after the case was filed.

The judgment begins by outlining the legal framework, citing the relevant articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) concerning infringement procedures (Article 258) and financial penalties for non-communication of transposition measures (Article 260(3)). It then details the key provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/790, particularly its objective to harmonize copyright and related rights in the digital single market (Article 1, recitals 3-5), the specific rules on online content-sharing service providers (Article 17), and the crucial Article 29 setting the transposition deadline (June 7, 2021) and the obligation to notify the Commission. The judgment also references the Commission’s 2023 Communication on financial penalties, which outlines the methodology for calculating proposed lump sums and penalty payments based on gravity, duration, and deterrent effect (payment capacity). The procedural history is then recounted, detailing the Commission’s formal notice and reasoned opinion, Portugal’s responses explaining the delays, the Commission’s decision to bring the case, and Portugal’s subsequent transposition of the directive via Decree-Law 47/2023, which led the Commission to withdraw its claim for a penalty payment but maintain the claim for a lump sum. The Court’s analysis follows, first confirming the infringement based on the situation at the expiry of the reasoned opinion deadline, then examining the Commission’s request for a lump sum under Article 260(3) TFEU. The Court assesses the appropriateness and the amount of the lump sum, considering factors like the gravity and duration of the infringement and Portugal’s payment capacity, while also evaluating the mitigating circumstances invoked by Portugal and the Commission’s penalty calculation method. The judgment concludes with the operative part, stating the Court’s decision on the infringement, the lump sum amount, and costs. Compared to previous approaches, the judgment highlights the Court’s independent assessment of the gravity of the infringement, rejecting the Commission’s automatic application of a standard gravity coefficient for all non-transposition cases and refining the criteria for assessing payment capacity by emphasizing GDP over population in the calculation.

The most important provisions of this judgment for its use are:
1. The confirmation that the existence of an infringement for failure to transpose a directive is assessed based on the situation at the expiry of the deadline set in the Commission’s reasoned opinion. Subsequent transposition, while ending the infringement, does not erase the past failure.
2. The application of Article 260(3) TFEU, which allows the Court to impose a financial penalty (lump sum and/or penalty payment) on a Member State solely for failing to notify the Commission of the transposition measures for a legislative directive within the deadline, without needing a prior infringement judgment under Article 258 TFEU.
3. The Court’s criteria for determining the amount of the lump sum: gravity, duration, and payment capacity. Crucially, the Court emphasizes that gravity must be assessed *in concreto*, taking into account the specific circumstances and the actual consequences of the non-transposition on private and public interests, rather than applying a fixed coefficient automatically.
4. The Court’s stance on common justifications for delay, such as political or constitutional difficulties, complexity of the directive, or waiting for further guidance or related court judgments, confirming that these generally do not excuse a Member State’s failure to meet transposition deadlines.
5. The specific finding regarding the assessment of gravity, where the Court considers the extent to which existing national law might have already covered some aspects of the directive, potentially mitigating the practical consequences of the delay.
6. The Court’s clarification on calculating the ‘n’ factor for payment capacity, reiterating that GDP should be the predominant factor and implicitly rejecting the inclusion of the population criterion as used in the Commission’s specific formula in its 2023 Communication.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.I. SA v S. J.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 2(b) – Concept of ‘consumer’ – Dual-purpose contract – Farmer concluding a contract for the purchase of a product intended for both agricultural and domestic use – Internal market for electricity – Directive 2009/72/EC – Article 3(7) – Annex I, paragraph 1 (a) – Household customer – Contract for the supply of electricity for a fixed period at a fixed price – Contractual penalty for early termination – National legislation limiting the amount of that penalty to the ‘costs and damages resulting from the contract’.Case C-410/23.

Here is a description of the provisions of the judgment you provided.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies how EU law applies to contracts involving individuals who might use a service for both personal and professional purposes, specifically focusing on a farmer’s electricity contract. It addresses whether such a person qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under EU unfair contract terms law and examines the legality of contractual penalties for early termination of fixed-term electricity supply contracts under EU electricity market rules. The Court provides interpretation on these points to guide national courts in applying EU law.

The text you have provided is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in a preliminary ruling procedure. Its structure follows a standard format for such judgments. It begins by identifying the case, the referring national court, and the EU legal acts whose interpretation is requested. It then sets out the relevant EU and national legal context. Following this, it describes the factual background of the dispute before the national court and the specific questions the national court has asked the CJEU to clarify. The core of the judgment is the Court’s “Consideration of the questions referred,” where it analyses the relevant EU law provisions in detail, often referring to previous case law and the objectives of the directives. Finally, it provides its ruling, which is the binding interpretation of EU law for the national court to apply to the specific case. Compared to previous interpretations, the Court clarifies its approach to defining a ‘consumer’ in dual-purpose contracts under Directive 93/13, aligning it with the approach suggested by Directive 2011/83 and distinguishing it from interpretations given in other contexts (like jurisdiction). It also builds upon recent case law regarding termination fees in the electricity market.

For practical use, the most important provisions of this judgment concern two key areas. First, regarding the definition of a ‘consumer’ in contracts used for both professional (like farming) and private purposes, the Court states that such a person can indeed be considered a consumer under Directive 93/13 if the professional purpose is “so limited as not to be predominant” in the overall context of the contract. This requires a case-by-case assessment by the national court based on all circumstances, including the nature of the service and the estimated consumption. Second, concerning contractual penalties for early termination of fixed-term, fixed-price electricity contracts, the judgment clarifies that EU electricity market rules (Directive 2009/72) do not, in principle, prohibit such penalties. However, it is crucial that national law ensures these penalties are fair, clear, communicated in advance, and freely consented to. Most importantly, national law must provide for a mechanism, such as administrative or judicial review, where the proportionality of the penalty can be assessed. A penalty that is disproportionate to the supplier’s actual economic loss resulting from the early termination would be contrary to EU law as it could prevent customers from easily switching suppliers and benefiting from a competitive market.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.HUK-COBURG Haftpflicht-Unterstützungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a.G. in Coburg v Check24 Vergleichsportal GmbH and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2006/114/EC – Misleading and comparative advertising – Article 4(c) – Permitted comparative advertising – Website offering an online insurance comparison service – Comparison by a third party by means of a grading or points system – Article 2(c) – No identification of a ‘competitor’.Case C-697/23.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union provides a crucial interpretation of the EU Directive on misleading and comparative advertising. It clarifies the scope of what constitutes “comparative advertising” under EU law, particularly in the context of online comparison services. The Court examined whether a website comparing insurance products, but not selling insurance itself, engages in comparative advertising subject to the Directive’s conditions. The ruling establishes that such a service is generally not considered comparative advertising because the comparison provider is typically not a competitor of the companies whose products are being compared.

The text is a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union following a request for a preliminary ruling from a German national court, the Landgericht München I. The structure includes the case details, the relevant legal context (Directive 2006/114/EC and German national law), the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings concerning an online insurance comparison website using a grading system, the specific question referred by the national court regarding the interpretation of Article 4(c) of the Directive, the Court’s analysis, and its final ruling. The main provision interpreted by the Court is Article 2(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC, which defines “comparative advertising.” The Court’s analysis focuses on the requirement that comparative advertising must identify a “competitor” or their goods/services. While the judgment doesn’t introduce changes to the Directive itself, it provides a significant clarification of its scope, particularly by defining the relationship required for undertakings to be considered “competitors” in this context. This refines the application of the Directive’s rules on comparative advertising to third-party comparison platforms.

The most important provision of this judgment for practical use is the Court’s interpretation of the definition of “comparative advertising” under Article 2(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC. The Court explicitly states that this concept does *not* include an online comparison service provided by an undertaking that is not a “competitor” within the meaning of that provision. This means that if the comparison provider does not itself offer the goods or services it compares (e.g., an insurance comparison site that is not an insurance company), it is generally not considered a competitor of the providers of those goods or services. Consequently, the specific rules and conditions for permitted comparative advertising laid down in Article 4 of the Directive may not apply to such comparison services. This is a key point for understanding when online comparison platforms fall under the specific regulatory framework for comparative advertising in the EU.

Arrêt de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 8 mai 2025.#Commission européenne contre République de Slovénie.#Manquement d’État – Environnement – Directive 1999/31/CE – Mise en décharge des déchets – Directive 2008/98/CE – Gestion des déchets – Arrêt de la Cour constatant un manquement – Inexécution partielle – Article 260, paragraphe 2, TFUE – Sanctions pécuniaires – Somme forfaitaire.#Affaire C-318/23.

Here is a description of the Court’s judgment:

This judgment concerns a case brought by the European Commission against Slovenia for failing to comply with a previous Court ruling from 2015. That earlier ruling found Slovenia in breach of EU waste and landfill laws regarding an illegal landfill site. In this new judgment, the Court confirms that Slovenia did not take the necessary measures to clean up the site within the required timeframe, thereby failing its obligations under the EU Treaty. Consequently, the Court has ordered Slovenia to pay a lump sum financial penalty to the Commission.

The judgment is structured around the Commission’s action under Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose financial penalties on a Member State that has not complied with a previous Court judgment. It first sets out the legal background, citing key provisions of the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) and the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) that were breached in the initial case. It then details the procedural history since the 2015 judgment, including exchanges between the Commission and Slovenia, Slovenia’s proposed cleanup plans and reported delays, and the Commission’s decision to bring this new action seeking penalties. The core of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of whether Slovenia failed to execute the 2015 ruling by the deadline set in the Commission’s formal notice and, if so, whether financial penalties are appropriate and in what amount. Unlike legislative acts, this judgment doesn’t amend previous versions of laws; it applies existing Treaty provisions and environmental directives in the context of enforcing a prior ruling.

For practical purposes, the most important provisions of this judgment are the Court’s confirmation that Slovenia failed to comply with the 2015 ruling regarding the specific landfill site by the relevant deadline. Crucially, the judgment imposes a lump sum penalty of €1,200,000 on Slovenia. The Court explains its reasoning for imposing this penalty, highlighting the gravity and duration of the non-compliance and taking into account Slovenia’s payment capacity. It also clarifies that factors like the nature of the waste or delays attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic did not fully justify the prolonged failure to act. The fact that Slovenia eventually achieved compliance during the proceedings led the Commission to withdraw its request for a daily penalty payment, but the Court still imposed the lump sum to sanction the period of non-compliance.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2025.K.P v Prokurator Rejonowy we Włocławku.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/1919 – Legal aid – Directive 2013/48/EU – The right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings – Procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons – Determination of the vulnerability of those persons – No legal presumption – Direct effect – Interview of a suspect in the absence of a lawyer – Admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of procedural rights.Case C-530/23.

Here is a description of the provisions of the judgment you provided:

1. **Essence of the Act:**
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interpreting EU law concerning the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, specifically focusing on access to a lawyer and legal aid, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Court clarifies the obligations of Member States under Directives 2013/48/EU and 2016/1919/EU regarding the timing of legal aid, the assessment of vulnerability, and the consequences of breaches of these rights. It addresses questions from a Polish court about the compatibility of national law with these EU directives and the principle of direct effect.

2. **Structure, Main Provisions, and Changes:**
The judgment follows the standard structure for a preliminary ruling. It begins by outlining the legal context, citing relevant international law (UN Principles), EU law (Directives 2013/48 and 2016/1919, Charter of Fundamental Rights, TEU) and a Commission Recommendation, as well as the relevant national law (Polish Code of Criminal Procedure). It then describes the factual background of the national case that prompted the reference. The core of the judgment is the Court’s analysis of the questions referred by the national court, grouped logically. The Court interprets the relevant provisions of the directives, explaining their scope and relationship. It clarifies that Directive 2016/1919 complements Directive 2013/48, linking the right to legal aid to the right of access to a lawyer. The judgment does not introduce new legislation or formally change previous versions of law, but rather provides an authoritative interpretation of existing EU directives and principles, clarifying how national law must align with them.

3. **Most Important Provisions for Use:**
For practical application, the most important provisions clarified by this judgment are:
* **Timing of Legal Aid and Vulnerability Assessment:** Member States must ensure that the vulnerability of a suspect or accused person is identified and acknowledged *before* they are questioned or before specific investigative or evidence-gathering acts are carried out. Legal aid must be granted to such persons *without undue delay*, and at the latest, before questioning or these specific acts.
* **Vulnerability Definition:** Persons with mental health conditions are considered vulnerable for the purposes of both Directive 2013/48 and Directive 2016/1919.
* **No Presumption of Vulnerability Required:** While a Commission Recommendation suggested it, EU law (specifically the directives) does not mandate Member States to establish a legal presumption of vulnerability. However, authorities must still take potential vulnerability into account.
* **Legal Aid Not Conditional on Request for Vulnerable Persons:** A request for legal aid from a vulnerable person should not be a substantive condition for granting it, given their specific needs.
* **Effective Remedies:** Decisions regarding the assessment of vulnerability and the refusal of legal aid must be reasoned and subject to an effective remedy under national law.
* **Admissibility of Evidence:** The judgment does *not* require national courts to automatically exclude evidence obtained in breach of the right to a lawyer or legal aid for vulnerable persons. However, national courts must be able to verify whether the rights under the directives and the Charter have been respected and must draw all necessary conclusions regarding the *probative value* of such evidence to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings.
* **Direct Effect:** The Court indicates that certain provisions of the directives (like the timing requirements for access to a lawyer and legal aid, and the obligation to take vulnerability into account) are unconditional and sufficiently precise to have direct effect, meaning national authorities (including police and prosecutors) and courts must disapply conflicting national law and apply the directive’s provisions if national law is not compatible and cannot be interpreted in conformity with EU law.

Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 8 mai 2025.#Commission européenne contre République de Bulgarie.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Directive (UE) 2019/790 – Marché unique numérique – Droits d’auteur et droits voisins – Absence de transposition et de communication des mesures de transposition – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Sanctions pécuniaires – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire et d’une astreinte – Désistement partiel.#Affaire C-186/23.

Here is a description of the Court’s judgment:

This judgment concerns an infringement procedure brought by the European Commission against Bulgaria for failing to transpose the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Directive 2019/790) into its national law by the required deadline and for failing to notify the Commission of the transposition measures. The Court found that Bulgaria had indeed failed to meet these obligations. Consequently, the Court ordered Bulgaria to pay a lump sum penalty to the Commission for this failure, as provided for under EU law for such cases of non-communication of transposition measures.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by identifying the parties involved and the subject matter of the dispute. It then sets out the relevant legal framework, primarily the Copyright Directive itself and the Commission’s communication on financial penalties in infringement procedures. The judgment details the pre-litigation procedure between the Commission and Bulgaria and the subsequent proceedings before the Court, noting Bulgaria’s eventual notification of transposition measures after the case was filed and the Commission’s partial withdrawal of its claims (specifically, dropping the request for a daily penalty payment, or ‘astreinte’). The core of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of the alleged infringement under Article 258 TFEU, where it examines and rejects Bulgaria’s arguments for the delay. Finally, the Court assesses the Commission’s request for financial penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU, determines the appropriateness and amount of a lump sum penalty, and rules on the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of this judgment for its use are:
* The finding that Bulgaria failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 29 of Directive 2019/790 by not adopting and communicating the necessary transposition measures within the prescribed deadlines.
* The Court’s rejection of the arguments put forward by Bulgaria to justify the delay, including claims of force majeure due to the Covid-19 pandemic and political instability, as well as the argument that existing national legislation already partially transposed the directive.
* The application of Article 260(3) TFEU, which allows the Court to impose financial penalties on a Member State for failing to communicate measures transposing a legislative directive.
* The Court’s decision to impose a lump sum penalty on Bulgaria.
* The Court’s reasoning regarding the determination of the lump sum amount, where it confirms its power to assess the amount based on the gravity and duration of the infringement and the Member State’s payment capacity, while noting that it is not strictly bound by the Commission’s calculation methodology, particularly regarding the automatic application of a gravity factor and the calculation of the ‘n’ factor.
* The specific amount of the lump sum penalty imposed, which the Court set at EUR 1,000,000.
* The ruling that Bulgaria must bear the costs of the proceedings, including those of the Commission, due to the finding of infringement and the timing of Bulgaria’s compliance.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibition – Vertical agreements – Article 101(3) TFEU – Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 – Block exemption – Article 4(b)(i) – Hardcore restriction that removes the benefit of that exemption – Exception – Exclusive distribution agreements – Restriction of active sales in an exclusive territory – Concept of ‘agreement’ – Concurrence of wills between the supplier and its buyers – Proof – Exclusive territory allocated to a buyer – Absence of active sales by other buyers in that territory.Case C-581/23.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union provides crucial clarity on how companies can lawfully protect exclusive distribution territories under EU competition law. It specifically addresses the conditions under which restrictions on ‘active sales’ into such territories can benefit from a block exemption, meaning they are presumed compatible with EU competition rules. The Court clarifies that simply observing that other distributors are not selling into an exclusive territory is not enough to prove they have agreed to refrain from doing so.

The judgment is structured logically, starting with the relevant legal context, including the now-expired Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 on vertical agreements and the accompanying Guidelines, as well as the relevant national law in Belgium. It then details the specific dispute that led to the questions being referred by the Belgian court, focusing on whether an exclusive distributor was adequately protected from active sales by other distributors. The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s analysis of the two questions posed by the national court. The main provisions interpreted are Article 4(b)(i) of Regulation 330/2010 and the concept of ‘agreement’ under Article 101 TFEU as applied to vertical relationships. Compared to previous general case law on ‘agreement’, this judgment specifically applies and clarifies the standard of proof in the context of the ‘parallel imposition requirement’ for active sales restrictions in exclusive distribution. It makes it clear that proof of an agreement requires more than just observing market behaviour; it requires demonstrating a concurrence of wills.

For companies involved in distribution agreements, particularly those operating with exclusive territories, the most important provisions of this judgment concern the burden and standard of proof for the ‘parallel imposition requirement’. The Court explicitly states that the mere fact that other buyers do not engage in active sales in an exclusive territory is *not sufficient* proof that they have agreed with the supplier to refrain from such sales. To benefit from the block exemption for restricting active sales, the party relying on the exemption must demonstrate, potentially through objective and consistent evidence, both that the supplier *invited* its other buyers not to make active sales in the exclusive territory and that those buyers *acquiesced* to this invitation. This means companies cannot simply rely on the absence of problematic sales but must ensure and be able to prove that their distribution agreements or the supplier’s conduct and the buyers’ response constitute a genuine agreement to respect the exclusivity. The benefit of the exemption only applies for the period for which this agreement and acquiescence can be shown.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.YC v Stadt Wuppertal.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States – Derived right of residence of a third-country national who has a dependent minor child with status of citizen of the Union – Relationship of dependency – Nature of a derived right of residence – Point at which the derived right of residence arises – Obligation to obtain a visa subsequently in a third country.Case C-130/24.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies key aspects of the derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU for third-country national parents of minor Union citizen children who reside in their Member State of nationality. It confirms that this right flows directly from EU law, arises when the dependency relationship is established, and cannot be made conditional on the third-country national having to leave the EU territory to obtain a visa. The ruling reinforces the principle that Member States cannot undermine the effectiveness of Union citizenship by forcing a Union citizen child to leave the EU.

The judgment follows the standard structure for a preliminary ruling. It begins by identifying the subject matter – the interpretation of Article 20 TFEU concerning the derived right of residence. It then sets out the relevant national legal context, specifically provisions of the German Residence Act concerning general conditions for issuing residence permits, family reunification with German nationals, and criminal provisions for illegal residence. The judgment details the facts of the specific case before the referring German court, involving a third-country national mother and her German minor child, and outlines the legal arguments raised by the national authorities. This leads to the referring court’s four questions to the CJEU, which form the core legal issues addressed. The Court then considers the questions, grouping them logically (second, then third, then first), presenting the observations from the parties and the Commission, and providing its legal assessment based on established case-law, particularly the *Zambrano* line of cases. Finally, it delivers its ruling, answering each question. The judgment builds upon and clarifies existing case-law regarding the *Zambrano* principle, rather than introducing entirely new concepts.

The most important provisions of this judgment for its practical use are the Court’s answers to the referring court’s questions. Firstly, the Court unequivocally states that the derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU flows directly from EU law. This means that a residence permit issued by national authorities in such a case is merely a declaratory act confirming an existing right, not a constitutive act granting the right. Secondly, the judgment clarifies the timing of this right, stating it arises not when an application is submitted, but from the moment the necessary relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the Union citizen child comes into being (which, in this case, is likely the child’s birth). Thirdly, and crucially, the Court rules that national legislation cannot make the recognition of this derived right conditional on the third-country national having to leave the EU territory to subsequently obtain a visa in a third country. The Court considers such a requirement disproportionate and capable of undermining the effectiveness of Article 20 TFEU by potentially forcing the Union citizen child to leave the EU.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2025.OF and Others v M.K., en qualité de mandataire liquidateur de Getin Noble Bank S.A. en liquidation (anciennement Getin Noble Bank S.A.).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency – Legal action brought by the consumer seeking a declaration that the agreement is null and void – Application for the grant of protective measures suspending performance of the agreement – Directive 2014/59/EU – Recovery and resolution of credit institutions – Bank under resolution – Article 1(2) – Member States’ power to adopt rules that are stricter than or additional to those in that directive – National rule requiring applications for protective measures directed against institutions under ongoing resolution to be dismissed.Case C-324/23.

Here is a description of the judgment:

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses a crucial point where consumer protection meets the stability of the financial system. It clarifies whether national rules designed to facilitate the resolution of failing banks can prevent consumers from exercising their fundamental rights under EU law, specifically the right to seek protective measures like suspending loan payments when challenging potentially unfair contract terms. The Court essentially rules that national law cannot automatically prohibit such consumer protection measures solely because a bank is under resolution, particularly when the disputed contract remains with the residual part of the bank, not transferred to a healthy entity.

The judgment is structured as a preliminary ruling, a process where a national court asks the CJEU for guidance on interpreting EU law. It outlines the background of the dispute involving Polish consumers and a Polish bank under resolution, the relevant EU law (the Unfair Terms Directive 93/13/EEC and the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU) and national Polish law. The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s analysis of how these different sets of rules interact. The Court examined whether the BRRD’s provisions, such as the ‘no creditor worse off’ principle, override the consumer protection requirements of Directive 93/13. It clarified that certain BRRD safeguards are applied *after* the resolution process to compensate creditors if they were treated worse than in normal insolvency, but they do not prevent necessary *procedural* protection for consumers *during* court proceedings. The judgment doesn’t introduce new EU law but interprets how existing directives apply in the specific context of a bank resolution where a disputed consumer contract remains with the residual entity.

The most important provision for practical use is the Court’s finding that Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, preclude national legislation that *requires* courts to dismiss a consumer’s application for protective measures (like suspending loan payments) *solely* because the bank is under resolution. This is particularly relevant when the loan agreement in question was not transferred to a bridge bank but remained with the residual institution. National courts must retain the power to grant such measures if they are necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of a potential future ruling that the contract contains unfair terms and is potentially invalid. The judgment emphasizes that in assessing this necessity, the national court must consider whether the consumer has already paid, or risks paying during the proceedings, an amount higher than what would be legally due if the contract were indeed declared invalid. This provides a vital tool for consumers challenging potentially unfair loan terms with banks undergoing resolution.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen and Sogent v KG and WA.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 2011/92/EU – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Projects listed in Annex II – Determination of the projects to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (screening) – Article 9a – Prevention of conflicts of interest – Combining the functions of developer and the authority competent to make that determination – Appropriate separation between conflicting functions.Case C-236/24.

Okay, let’s look at this judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This judgment clarifies the application of EU environmental law regarding conflicts of interest. Specifically, it addresses situations where the public authority responsible for deciding if a project needs a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) is also the developer of that project. The Court rules that in such cases, EU law requires an appropriate separation of functions within the authority to ensure objectivity, and this requirement applies even at the initial stage of determining whether an EIA is necessary. This aims to prevent potential bias when an authority is essentially deciding on its own project.

The text you have provided is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, not a legislative act like a directive or regulation. Its structure follows the standard format for preliminary rulings. It begins by identifying the case, the referring national court (the Belgian Council of State), and the specific EU law provision being interpreted (Article 9a of Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). It then sets out the relevant EU and national legal background, describes the facts of the national dispute that led to the reference, and states the precise question asked by the national court. The core of the judgment is the “Consideration of the question referred,” where the Court analyses the relevant EU law provision based on its wording, context, objectives, and legislative history. The judgment concludes with the Court’s definitive ruling on the interpretation of the EU law provision. Compared to the previous version of the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU before the 2014 amendment), Article 9a itself was introduced by the 2014 amendment (Directive 2014/52/EU) specifically to address the issue of conflicts of interest and ensure objectivity. This judgment provides an interpretation of this relatively new provision, clarifying its scope.

The most important provision of this judgment for its practical use is the ruling itself, found at the end. The Court explicitly states that Article 9a of Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for an appropriate separation between conflicting functions applies not only to the full environmental impact assessment procedure but *also* to the initial “screening” stage where the competent authority determines whether a project needs an EIA at all (for projects listed in Annex II of the Directive). This means that if a municipality or other public body is developing a project and is also the authority responsible for deciding if that project requires an EIA, it must ensure a genuine separation of the decision-making function from the development function. The judgment refers to previous case law (the Seaport judgment) to indicate what this separation entails: the administrative body making the decision must have real autonomy, including its own resources, to ensure objectivity. This is crucial for ensuring fair and objective environmental decision-making in cases involving public developers.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.L.T. s.s. and Others v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Fixed-term work – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4(1) – Principle of non-discrimination against fixed-term workers – Scope – Concept of an ‘employment condition’ – Fixed-term agricultural labourers – Social security contributions calculated on the basis of remuneration – Remuneration of fixed-term agricultural workers established on the basis of daily working hours completed – Remuneration of permanent agricultural workers established on the basis of a fixed daily working time.Joined Cases C-212/24, C-226/24 and C-227/24.

This judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerns the interpretation of EU law regarding the principle of non-discrimination against fixed-term workers. Specifically, it examines whether national rules in Italy, which calculate social security contributions for fixed-term agricultural workers based on hours actually worked, while using a fixed daily working time for permanent agricultural workers, comply with the EU Framework Agreement on fixed-term work. The Court was asked by an Italian court to clarify if this difference in calculating the basis for contributions constitutes less favourable treatment prohibited by EU law.

The judgment follows the standard structure for preliminary rulings. It outlines the background of the case, the relevant EU law (Directive 1999/70/EC and the Framework Agreement, particularly Clause 4 on non-discrimination) and national law (Italian decree-law and collective agreement provisions on social security contributions and working time for agricultural workers). It then addresses the admissibility of the questions before proceeding to the substance. The Court analyzes the purpose and scope of the Framework Agreement, defining ‘fixed-term worker’, ‘comparable permanent worker’, and ’employment conditions’ (including social security contributions linked to occupational schemes). It assesses whether there is less favourable treatment and comparability between the worker groups and, if so, whether there are objective grounds for the difference. The judgment clarifies that social security contributions financing occupational schemes can fall under ’employment conditions’ and that justifications based solely on the temporary nature of the contract are not objective grounds.

The most important provision highlighted by this judgment is the interpretation of Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement. The Court indicates that national legislation or collective agreements, as interpreted by national courts, cannot treat fixed-term workers less favourably than comparable permanent workers regarding employment conditions, including the basis for calculating social security contributions for occupational schemes, solely because of their fixed-term status. This means that calculating contributions based on actual hours for fixed-term workers while using a fixed daily time for permanent workers doing comparable work is likely incompatible with EU law unless genuinely justified by precise, specific, and objective factors unrelated to the temporary nature of the employment. This has direct implications for how employers calculate contributions and potentially for the social security benefits received by fixed-term agricultural workers in Italy.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v P. S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 73 – Taxable amount – Consideration – Subsidies directly linked to the price of a taxable transaction – Collective public transport services – Compensation paid by a local authority to the service provider to cover the costs incurred – Direct link between the compensation and the services provided.Case C-615/23.

Okay, here is a description of the judgment you provided, tailored for a journalist.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies how certain payments received by public transport operators should be treated for Value Added Tax (VAT) purposes under EU law. Specifically, it addresses whether flat-rate compensation paid by a local authority to cover an operator’s losses from providing collective public transport services should be included in the operator’s taxable amount for VAT. The Court concluded that such compensation, when structured in this way, is not considered part of the taxable amount. This provides important legal certainty for public transport financing models across the EU.

The judgment is structured as a response to a preliminary ruling request from a Polish court, the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court). It begins by setting out the relevant EU law, primarily Article 73 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC), and the pertinent national Polish law concerning VAT and public transport funding. It then describes the specific dispute in the main proceedings, involving a public transport operator (P. S.A.) and the Polish tax authority regarding compensation paid by a local organiser. The core of the judgment lies in the Court’s “Consideration of the question referred,” where it analyses the concept of “subsidies directly linked to the price” and “consideration obtained… from a third party” under Article 73, referencing its previous case-law (including *Office des produits wallons*, *Commission v Sweden*, and *Le Rayon d’Or*). The Court examines the characteristics of the compensation in question – that it’s flat-rate, intended to cover losses, set by the organiser, and not directly tied to the price paid by the individual passenger or specific services. It then distinguishes this situation from previous rulings, particularly the *Le Rayon d’Or* case concerning healthcare lump sums, finding key differences in how the compensation is calculated and linked (or not linked) to specific service recipients or prices. The judgment concludes with the Court’s formal ruling on the interpretation of Article 73 based on this analysis.

The most important provision of this judgment is its interpretation of Article 73 of the VAT Directive as it applies to public transport compensation. The Court explicitly rules that flat-rate compensation paid by a local authority to cover an operator’s losses is *not* included in the taxable amount for VAT. Key to this conclusion is the finding that this type of compensation lacks a *direct link* to the price paid by the individual passenger and is not paid for a *specific supply* to a particular recipient. The Court clarifies that merely influencing the overall price level (i.e., without the compensation, tickets would be more expensive) is not sufficient to create the necessary direct link required by Article 73 for a subsidy to be taxable. It also distinguishes this type of general loss compensation, calculated based on factors like vehicle-kilometres, from payments in other sectors (like healthcare in *Le Rayon d’Or*) that were found to be directly linked to services provided to identifiable beneficiaries. This judgment provides a clear benchmark for tax authorities and transport operators assessing the VAT treatment of such public service compensation.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v X.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) – Procedures for granting international protection – Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Consideration of other circumstances.Case C-662/23.

Here is a description of the provisions of this judgment.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the conditions under which EU Member States can extend the standard six-month deadline for examining applications for international protection. It specifically interprets Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which allows extensions when a large number of applications are lodged simultaneously, making it practically difficult to conclude procedures within the standard timeframe. The Court defines key terms like “simultaneously” and “large number” and clarifies what circumstances can justify such an extension, particularly in light of Member States’ obligation to ensure adequate resources for processing applications.

The judgment follows a standard structure for preliminary rulings. It begins by identifying the national court making the reference and the parties involved in the main proceedings. It then sets out the relevant EU and national legal context, citing provisions from Directive 2013/32/EU concerning the examination procedure and responsible authorities, as well as the relevant national law in the Netherlands. The core of the judgment details the dispute in the national court, outlining the facts of the case (an asylum seeker whose application was delayed) and the questions the national court is asking the CJEU to interpret regarding the application of the Directive’s time limits and extension possibilities. The Court then addresses the admissibility of the request before proceeding to consider the referred questions. The main provisions analysed are Article 31(3)(b) regarding the extension criteria (“simultaneously”, “large number”, “very difficult in practice”) and Article 4(1) regarding the Member State’s obligation to provide adequate means, including sufficient personnel. The judgment provides an interpretation of these provisions, clarifying their meaning and relationship, rather than introducing changes to the text of the Directive itself.

The most important provisions of this judgment for practical use lie in its interpretation of the conditions for extending the six-month examination period under Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The Court rules that “simultaneously” means “within a short period”, explicitly excluding a gradual increase in applications over an extended period as a ground for extension under this specific provision. It clarifies that a “large number” must be assessed based on a significant increase compared to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State. Crucially, the judgment states that practical difficulties justifying the extension must result *from* this large number of simultaneous applications. This means that circumstances unrelated to such a sudden influx, such as pre-existing backlogs of applications or a general lack of personnel at the determining authority, cannot be used on their own to justify an extension under Article 31(3)(b). Member States are expected, under Article 4(1), to have sufficient capacity to handle the usual and foreseeable flow of applications.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2025.Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev v Council of the European Union.Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus – Decision 2012/642/CFSP – Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 – Freezing of funds – Restriction on admission to and transit through the territory of the European Union – Inclusion and maintenance of the appellant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned – Criterion of benefit from or support for the Lukashenko regime.Case C-681/23 P.

This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union concerns an appeal brought by a Russian businessman challenging his inclusion and maintenance on the European Union’s lists of persons subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus. The sanctions, which include asset freezing and travel restrictions, were imposed based on the criterion of benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime. The businessman argued that the lower court erred in interpreting this criterion and assessing the evidence against him. The Court of Justice ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court’s decision and confirming the validity of the sanctions.

The judgment is structured around the appellant’s three grounds of appeal against the General Court’s judgment. It begins by setting out the relevant EU legal framework, specifically Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 and Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, which establish the restrictive measures regime against Belarus and define the listing criteria. The judgment then details the factual background, including the initial listing of the appellant and the subsequent decisions to maintain him on the lists, along with the reasons provided by the Council. The core of the judgment is the Court’s step-by-step analysis of each of the appellant’s arguments challenging the General Court’s interpretation of the “benefiting from or supporting” criterion, the requirement for current support, and the assessment of the evidence regarding his business interests and personal relationship with Mr. Lukashenko. The Court examines whether the General Court made errors of law in its reasoning.

Among the most important findings of this judgment is the Court’s confirmation that the criterion of “benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime” is broad and is not limited solely to financial or material forms of support. The Court clarifies that other forms of support or benefit can also justify the imposition of restrictive measures under this framework. Furthermore, the judgment confirms that when assessing whether this criterion is met at the time of listing or renewal, the Council and the courts can rely on a body of evidence that includes past actions, particularly when those actions demonstrate an ongoing relationship or influence relevant to the regime. Crucially, the Court upheld the General Court’s finding that the combination of the appellant’s significant business interests in strategic sectors in Belarus and his long-standing personal relationship with Mr. Lukashenko constituted sufficient evidence to conclude that he benefited from or supported the regime, thereby justifying his inclusion on the sanctions lists. The judgment also reinforces the principle that if at least one of the reasons provided for a listing is found to be legally sufficient and substantiated, the listing can be upheld, making it unnecessary for the court to examine other potentially weaker reasons.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/736]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate specific European Union legal acts into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). Its essence is to ensure that recent EU rules concerning feed additives become applicable law within the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, with a specific carve-out for Liechtenstein in this area). This process maintains the homogeneity of law across the internal market regarding veterinary and phytosanitary matters, specifically focusing on feedingstuffs in this instance.

The structure of the Decision is straightforward. It begins by citing the legal basis in the EEA Agreement and outlining, in its recitals, the specific EU acts that are to be incorporated and the reason for excluding Liechtenstein from the application of legislation regarding feedingstuffs. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which details the precise amendments to Chapter II of Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement. Article 2 specifies the authentic language versions, Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates its publication. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal inclusion of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2183, which updates the name of the holder of authorisation for several existing feed additives, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2185, which grants authorisation for a new specific feed additive preparation for poultry.

For anyone dealing with feed additives in the EEA, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. This article directly identifies the two EU Implementing Regulations that are now part of the EEA legal framework. This means that the updated information on authorisation holders for certain feed additives, as specified in Regulation (EU) 2024/2183, and the authorisation of the new feed additive preparation consisting of specific strains of *Bacillus subtilis*, *Enterococcus lactis*, and *Clostridium butyricum* for poultry, as granted by Regulation (EU) 2024/2185, are now legally binding requirements in Norway and Iceland. Businesses importing, exporting, or using these feed additives in these countries must comply with the provisions of these incorporated EU regulations.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 35/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/766]

Okay, let’s break down this Decision of the EEA Joint Committee.

This Decision is essentially the formal step taken by the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee to integrate a specific piece of European Union law into the legal framework of the EEA Agreement. Its core purpose is to ensure that the rules laid down in a particular EU regulation concerning transport, specifically aviation, also apply in the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This ensures a common set of rules for aviation safety and operations across the EU and these three EFTA countries.

Looking at the structure and main provisions, the Decision is quite straightforward. It starts with a preamble citing the basis for the Decision (the EEA Agreement, Article 98) and providing context in the recitals. The key recital (1) identifies the specific EU act being incorporated: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2076 of 24 July 2024. Recital (2) states the consequence – Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement needs to be amended. The operative part consists of four articles. Article 1 is the central provision; it explicitly adds a reference to Regulation (EU) 2024/2076 into points 66ne and 66nf of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement. These points already list previous EU regulations related to flight crew licensing (Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011) and air operations (Regulation (EU) No 965/2012), which are the regulations that the incorporated Regulation 2024/2076 amends. Article 2 deals with the authenticity of the text in Icelandic and Norwegian. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, conditional on necessary notifications. Article 4 mandates publication. Compared to previous versions of Annex XIII, this Decision specifically updates it by adding the latest EU regulatory changes in the identified areas.

For practical use, the most important provision is undoubtedly Article 1. By adding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2076 to Annex XIII, this Decision makes the rules contained within that Regulation legally binding in the EEA EFTA States. According to the recital, Regulation 2024/2076 brings updates regarding requirements for flight crew licensing, medical certification for pilots, clarifies rules for cruise relief co-pilots, and includes improvements relevant to general aviation. Therefore, anyone involved in aviation operations, pilot training, or medical certification in Iceland, Liechtenstein, or Norway will need to comply with the updated rules introduced by Regulation 2024/2076, just as their counterparts in the EU Member States do.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 11/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) and Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/729]

Okay, here is the description of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 11/2025 based on the text provided.

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate a key piece of European Union law into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, it incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2104, which concerns official controls on certain goods arriving in the Union. The aim is to ensure that the rules governing these controls, particularly regarding the notification requirements for operators, are applied consistently across the EU and the participating EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway). This harmonisation is crucial for the smooth functioning of trade within the EEA.

Looking at the structure, the Decision begins with recitals explaining the legal basis and the purpose of incorporating the specific EU Delegated Regulation. It then has operative articles. Article 1 amends Annex I of the EEA Agreement, adding the Delegated Regulation to chapters dealing with veterinary matters and feedingstuffs/foodstuffs. Article 2 similarly amends Annex II, Chapter XII, which covers technical regulations and certification. The subsequent articles address the authenticity of language versions, entry into force, and publication. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal extension of the rules laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2104 to Iceland and Norway, thereby updating the relevant annexes of the EEA Agreement.

For businesses and authorities involved in importing goods into Iceland and Norway, the most important aspect is the incorporation of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2104. This means that the specific provisions within that EU regulation regarding the cases where and the conditions under which competent authorities can require operators to notify the arrival of certain goods now apply in these EEA EFTA states. Operators importing goods covered by the Delegated Regulation may therefore be subject to new or updated notification obligations, and competent authorities will have the legal basis to request such notifications according to the rules set out in that regulation. It’s worth noting that, as indicated in the Decision, this specific legislation concerning veterinary matters, feedingstuffs, and foodstuffs does not apply to Liechtenstein.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 9/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/748]

Here is a description of the provisions of this act.

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate specific European Union legislation into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Its primary purpose is to extend the application of two recent EU Commission Implementing Decisions concerning temporary derogations for the marketing of certain seeds from the EU to the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein, though with a specific limitation for Liechtenstein).

The act is structured concisely, beginning with recitals that explain the necessity of incorporating the mentioned EU acts into the EEA Agreement and noting the specific non-application to Liechtenstein regarding phytosanitary matters. The core of the Decision is found in Article 1, which formally amends Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) of the EEA Agreement by adding two new points referencing the specific Commission Implementing Decisions. Article 2 specifies the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated acts. Article 3 sets the conditions and date for the Decision’s entry into force, and Article 4 mandates its publication. The change compared to the previous version of Annex I is the addition of these two specific EU Implementing Decisions to the list of EU acts applicable under the EEA Agreement.

For practical use, the most important provision is Article 1. This article directly identifies the two specific EU Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2024/1188 and (EU) 2024/1192 that are now made part of the EEA legal order. These incorporated Decisions contain the actual temporary derogations granted to the Netherlands (for certified seed) and to Belgium, France, and the Netherlands (for certified flax seed) from standard EU marketing conditions. Therefore, anyone needing to understand the specific rules applicable in the EEA regarding these temporary seed marketing derogations must refer to the text of the two incorporated Commission Implementing Decisions identified in Article 1. Article 3 is also crucial as it indicates the date from which this Decision, and thus the incorporated rules, becomes legally binding in the EEA EFTA states, provided the necessary procedural steps have been completed.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 12/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) and Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/746]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate a specific piece of European Union law into the legal framework of the European Economic Area. Specifically, it incorporates Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711, which deals with maximum residue levels for the pesticide thiacloprid in certain food and feed products. The aim is to ensure that the same rules on these residue levels apply in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway) as in the EU Member States. However, due to existing agreements, this Decision does not apply to Liechtenstein.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the basis and purpose, followed by five articles. The main provisions are found in Articles 1 and 2, which formally amend Annex I and Annex II of the EEA Agreement, respectively, by adding Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711 to the list of applicable EU acts. Article 3 addresses the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation. Article 4 sets the entry into force date, conditional upon necessary notifications. This Decision itself represents a change to the EEA Agreement by adding a new act to its scope, rather than detailing changes within the incorporated act.

For practical purposes, the most significant provisions are Articles 1 and 2. These articles are the mechanism by which the EU rules on maximum residue levels for thiacloprid, as set out in Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711, become legally binding within the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway). Preamble point (2) is also important as it clarifies that this specific Decision does not extend to Liechtenstein. Article 4 is key for determining when these changes take effect.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/735]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee is a legal act designed to integrate specific European Union legislation into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Its essence is to extend the application of an EU Implementing Regulation concerning the digital format and exchange of vehicle certificates of conformity to the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This ensures that the rules governing the electronic handling of these important vehicle documents are harmonised across the entire EEA.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the legal basis and the necessity of incorporating the relevant EU act. The core of the Decision lies in Article 1, which amends Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) of the EEA Agreement. It does this in two ways: by adding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1061 as a new point (51f) in Chapter I of Annex II, and by noting that this same Regulation 2024/1061 amends a previously incorporated regulation (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/133, covered under point 51c). Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, conditional upon necessary notifications, and Article 4 mandates its publication. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal inclusion of Regulation 2024/1061 into the EEA legal order.

For anyone dealing with vehicle type-approval and registration in the EEA, the most important provision is Article 1. This article makes Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1061 legally binding in the EEA EFTA states. This means that the specific rules laid down in Regulation 2024/1061 regarding the secure electronic exchange of data for the certificate of conformity and the provision of read-only access to this certificate, as required under EU Regulation 2018/858, must now be complied with by relevant parties within those countries, just as they are in the EU Member States.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 32/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/760]

This decision by the EEA Joint Committee is a legal act that formally incorporates a specific piece of European Union law into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, it integrates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381, which deals with common rules for interconnecting national electronic registers on road transport undertakings, into the EEA Agreement. This step ensures that the rules established by that EU Regulation will also apply in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway).

Looking at the structure, the decision is concise, comprising a preamble and four articles. The preamble explains the basis for the decision, citing the EEA Agreement and the need to incorporate the mentioned EU Regulation. The core of the act is Article 1, which directly amends Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, conditional on necessary notifications, and Article 4 mandates its publication. The main change introduced by this decision is the legal extension of the rules contained in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381 to the EEA EFTA states, building upon the existing framework related to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480.

For practical use, the most significant provision is undoubtedly Article 1. By adding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381 to Annex XIII of the EEA Agreement, this decision makes the provisions of that EU Regulation legally binding within the EEA. This means that authorities and businesses involved in road transport undertakings in the EEA EFTA states must now comply with the rules set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381 concerning the interconnection of their national electronic registers. To understand the precise obligations and technical requirements, one would need to consult the text of the incorporated Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2381 itself.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/724]

Here is a description of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2025:

This Decision is an act of the EEA Joint Committee, tasked with managing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). Its primary purpose is to integrate specific European Union legal acts into the EEA Agreement, thereby extending their application to the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein, with a specific adaptation noted for Liechtenstein). The Decision focuses on legislation concerning feed additives for animals, ensuring regulatory alignment between the EU and the participating EFTA countries in this area. It updates Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) of the EEA Agreement by adding new EU rules and removing an outdated one.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward, beginning with a preamble setting out the legal basis and rationale (Recitals 1-5). This is followed by four operative Articles. Article 1 is the core provision, detailing the specific amendments to Chapter II of Annex I of the EEA Agreement. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the incorporated texts in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, subject to necessary notifications. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision. Compared to previous versions of Annex I, this Decision introduces two new Commission Implementing Regulations from 2024 concerning feed additives and explicitly deletes a point corresponding to an older Commission Implementing Regulation from 2013 that has been repealed by one of the new acts.

For practical use, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. This article specifies *which* EU legal acts are being incorporated into the EEA Agreement. Specifically, it adds Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2393, which concerns the renewal of the authorisation of sodium bisulphate and authorises new uses of this substance as a feed additive. It also adds Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2394, which renews the authorisation of a specific preparation of *Enterococcus lactis* as a feed additive for cats and dogs and repeals an older regulation (Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1061/2013). Consequently, Article 1 also explicitly removes the reference to the repealed Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1061/2013 from Annex I of the EEA Agreement. It is also crucial to note Recital 4, which clarifies that legislation regarding feedingstuffs, including this Decision, does not apply to Liechtenstein under specific conditions related to its agreement with Switzerland on agricultural products.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 8/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/758]

Good day. Here is the description of the legal act you provided.

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee incorporates a specific piece of European Union legislation, Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2022/1647, into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). The incorporated Directive amends existing EU rules concerning the marketing of propagating material of vegetable species, specifically by introducing a derogation for organic varieties suitable for organic production. By integrating this Directive, the Decision ensures that these updated rules, including the derogation for organic varieties, apply within the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway).

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the necessity of incorporating the EU Implementing Directive into the EEA Agreement and clarifying its scope, noting that it does not apply to Liechtenstein regarding phytosanitary matters. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters), Chapter III of the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2022/1647 under the existing entry for Commission Directive 2003/90/EC. This addition is the main change introduced by this Decision, effectively extending the application of the Implementing Directive to the EEA EFTA states. Articles 2, 3, and 4 cover standard procedural aspects, such as the authenticity of language versions, the entry into force date, and publication requirements.

For practical purposes, the most significant provision is Article 1. It means that the specific rules laid down in Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2022/1647, particularly the derogation it introduces for organic varieties of agricultural plant species, are now part of the legal framework applicable in Iceland and Norway under the EEA Agreement. This is important for anyone involved in the production, marketing, or use of propagating material of vegetable species in these countries, especially those operating within the organic sector, as they must now comply with the provisions of the incorporated EU Directive.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 19/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/744]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate a specific piece of European Union legislation into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). In essence, it formally adds a Commission Implementing Decision concerning the approval of a chemical substance used in biocidal products to Annex II of the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the rules governing this substance in the EU are also applied in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein).

The structure of the Decision is straightforward. It begins with recitals explaining the necessity of incorporating the relevant EU act. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which explicitly amends Annex II, Chapter XV of the EEA Agreement by inserting a new point that references Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2411. Article 2 addresses linguistic authenticity, while Articles 3 and 4 cover entry into force and publication requirements. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal inclusion of the specified EU act into the EEA legal order, thereby extending the effect of that EU act to the EEA EFTA countries.

For those affected by this Decision, the most important provision is Article 1, specifically because of the EU act it incorporates: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2411. This incorporated decision postpones the expiry date for the approval of didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) when used in biocidal products of product-type 8, which are preservatives for wood. Consequently, this EEA Joint Committee Decision means that the extended approval period for DDAC for this specific use now legally applies within the EEA EFTA states, impacting manufacturers, importers, and users of such wood preservatives in those countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 3/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/721]

Here is a description of the provisions of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 3/2025:

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to incorporate a specific piece of European Union legislation into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Its main purpose is to ensure that the rules governing certain types of animal feed, specifically those intended for particular nutritional purposes, are the same in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway) as they are in the EU Member States. By doing so, it maintains the homogeneity of law in this area of veterinary and phytosanitary matters across the EEA.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the necessity of the incorporation, followed by the substantive articles. The preamble highlights that Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2899, which amended an earlier regulation on feed for particular nutritional purposes (Regulation (EU) 2020/354), needs to be included in the EEA Agreement. It also explicitly states that this legislation will not apply to Liechtenstein due to specific arrangements concerning agricultural products with Switzerland. The central provision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex I of the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to Regulation (EU) 2024/2899 as an update to the existing entry for Regulation (EU) 2020/354. This action integrates the changes introduced by the EU Regulation into the EEA legal order. The Decision also contains standard articles regarding the authenticity of the text in Icelandic and Norwegian, its entry into force, and its publication.

For those dealing with this legislation, the most important provision is Article 1. This article is where the Decision explicitly states that Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2899 is now part of the EEA Agreement, meaning its updated rules on feed for particular nutritional purposes are legally binding in Iceland and Norway. Recital 2 is also highly relevant as it clearly indicates that this specific legislation does not apply to Liechtenstein. Finally, Article 3 is important as it sets the date, 8 February 2025, from which this Decision, and thus the incorporated EU Regulation, will take effect in the EEA, provided the necessary constitutional notifications have been made.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 20/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/745]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate recent European Union legal acts concerning biocidal products and their active substances into the framework of the European Economic Area Agreement. By doing so, it ensures that the same rules and approvals regarding specific substances and products apply in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) as in the EU Member States. This process is a standard mechanism to maintain legal homogeneity across the internal market.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the need to incorporate specific EU acts into the EEA Agreement. The core legal effect is contained in Article 1, which directly amends Annex II, Chapter XV (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) of the EEA Agreement. It does this by adding references to nine specific EU legal acts: two Commission Implementing Regulations approving active substances (prallethrin and silver zinc zeolite) and seven Commission Implementing Decisions. These decisions include repealing a previous decision on sulfuryl fluoride, postponing the expiry dates of approval for several active substances (dinotefuran, pyriproxyfen, alkyl (C12-16) dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, formaldehyde, metofluthrin), and addressing unresolved objections for a specific biocidal product (Phenogen). Article 1 also explicitly deletes the reference to the previously incorporated decision that is now repealed. Articles 2, 3, and 4 deal with technical aspects like authentic languages, entry into force, and publication. The main change compared to the previous state of Annex II is the addition of these nine new references and the removal of one, updating the list of applicable EU biocides legislation within the EEA.

For practical purposes, the most significant part of this Decision is Article 1. This article lists precisely which EU regulations and decisions concerning specific active substances and a particular biocidal product are now incorporated into the EEA Agreement. This means that businesses and authorities in the EEA EFTA states must comply with the requirements set out in these listed EU acts regarding the approval status, conditions of use, and authorisation processes for prallethrin, silver zinc zeolite, dinotefuran, pyriproxyfen, alkyl (C12-16) dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, formaldehyde, metofluthrin, and the product Phenogen. It directly impacts which biocidal products containing these substances can be placed on the market and under what conditions in those countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 2/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/722]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate recent European Union legislation concerning animal health into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, it incorporates two Commission Implementing Regulations from July 2024 that update rules on the disease status of animals and animal populations. The purpose is to ensure that the same high standards and procedures for veterinary matters, particularly regarding listed diseases and disease-free status, apply consistently across the EU Member States and the participating EEA EFTA States.

The structure of the Decision is straightforward. It begins by citing the relevant legal basis and explaining in its recitals why the two specific EU Implementing Regulations (2024/2032 and 2024/2043) need to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. It also explicitly notes limitations on the application of this Decision to Iceland and Liechtenstein based on existing arrangements. The core legal effect is found in Article 1, which formally amends Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement by adding references to the two specified Implementing Regulations. Article 2 confirms the authenticity of the Norwegian language versions of the incorporated texts, and Article 3 sets the date for the Decision’s entry into force, subject to necessary notifications. This Decision primarily changes Annex I of the EEA Agreement by adding these two new pieces of EU legislation to the list of applicable acts.

For anyone dealing with the movement or trade of live animals within the EEA, the most important provisions are those in Article 1, which effectively make Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2032 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2043 legally binding within the EEA. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2032 is crucial as it concerns the official recognition of disease-free status for specific listed diseases in Member States or their zones, and also approves national eradication programmes. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2043 is important because it updates the list of diseases for which disease-free status can be established at the level of an animal compartment, which is vital for managing disease risks in specific, contained populations. Understanding the rules laid down in these two incorporated regulations is essential for compliance with EEA veterinary law.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 36/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/759]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to incorporate a specific European Union legal act into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, it adds Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/411 to Annex XX of the EEA Agreement, which deals with environmental matters. The purpose is to ensure that the rules established by the EU regarding the administration of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) for shipping companies also apply within the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This integration ensures a uniform approach to assigning responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions from maritime transport across the EU and EEA.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins with a preamble explaining the necessity of incorporating the relevant EU Implementing Decision into the EEA Agreement. The central provision is Article 1, which formally inserts a new point into Annex XX of the EEA Agreement, referencing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/411. This constitutes the main change introduced by this Decision – the expansion of the list of EU environmental acts applicable under the EEA Agreement. Article 2 addresses the linguistic authenticity of the incorporated text in Icelandic and Norwegian, while Articles 3 and 4 specify the entry into force date and publication requirements.

For practical purposes, the most important provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/411, this Decision makes the list of shipping companies and their assigned administering authorities under the EU ETS applicable in the EEA EFTA states. This means that shipping companies operating voyages covered by the EU ETS, including those involving EEA EFTA ports, will be subject to the administrative oversight of the authority designated in the incorporated EU Implementing Decision, regardless of whether that authority is in an EU Member State or an EEA EFTA state. This is crucial for the consistent application of the EU ETS to the maritime sector across the entire EEA.

Decision No 1/2024 of the Partnership Committee established by the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, of 25 October 2024 on the adoption of the Mediation Mechanism, the Rules of Procedure and the Code of Conduct [2025/861]

This Decision of the Partnership Committee under the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) is a crucial step in making the trade dispute settlement system fully functional. It formally adopts three essential components: a Mediation Mechanism, detailed Rules of Procedure for arbitration panels, and a Code of Conduct for those involved. These adopted texts provide the practical framework for resolving trade and investment disputes between the EU and Armenia under the CEPA, ensuring clarity, fairness, and efficiency in the process.

The Decision itself is the formal act of adoption, referencing the relevant articles of the CEPA (Articles 319(3) and 335(2)) that mandate the Partnership Committee to adopt these mechanisms. The core of the act lies in its three Annexes. Annex 1 establishes the Mediation Mechanism, outlining a voluntary process for the Parties to seek a mutually agreed solution with the assistance of a mediator. Annex 2 contains the comprehensive Rules of Procedure governing formal arbitration panel proceedings, detailing everything from notifications and arbitrator appointment to hearings, confidentiality, and timelines. Annex 3 sets out a Code of Conduct applicable to both arbitrators and mediators, focusing on principles of independence, impartiality, and disclosure. Compared to previous versions, this Decision represents the *initial* adoption of these specific, detailed operational rules and mechanisms under the CEPA, moving from the general framework provided in the Agreement to concrete procedures.

For practical application, several provisions stand out as particularly important. The Mediation Mechanism’s voluntary nature means both Parties must agree to enter into mediation, and it clearly lays out how the procedure is initiated, how a mediator is selected (including fallback options if Parties cannot agree), and the mediator’s role (assisting, not interpreting the Agreement). The Rules of Procedure provide critical timelines for written submissions and hearings, specify how arbitrators are appointed and can be replaced, and establish strict rules on confidentiality and prohibiting *ex parte* contacts to ensure procedural integrity. The Code of Conduct is fundamental for ensuring the impartiality and independence of the individuals serving as arbitrators and mediators, requiring ongoing disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The relationship between the mechanisms is also key: mediation is distinct from formal dispute settlement, and information from mediation is generally confidential and cannot be used in arbitration.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 10/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) and Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/747]

Okay, let’s break down this EEA Joint Committee Decision.

This decision is essentially a procedural act by the bodies managing the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Its core purpose is to formally incorporate two specific European Union legal acts – Commission Delegated Regulations from 2024 – into the legal framework of the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the rules contained in these EU regulations become part of the law applicable in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), thereby maintaining homogeneity across the internal market. The decision also clarifies certain limitations on the application of these rules based on existing arrangements within the EEA Agreement.

The decision is structured quite simply. It begins by citing the legal basis for the decision (Article 98 of the EEA Agreement) and then provides several “whereas” clauses or recitals explaining the background and rationale. These recitals identify the two EU Delegated Regulations being incorporated (2024/950 and 2024/2562) and outline specific carve-outs or non-applications of certain provisions for the EFTA states, such as plant health rules, rules on live animals for Iceland, and rules on veterinary matters, feedingstuffs, and foodstuffs for Liechtenstein. The operative part of the decision is contained in Articles 1 and 2, which directly amend Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) and Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) of the EEA Agreement by adding the two 2024 Regulations as amendments to previously incorporated acts (Delegated Regulations 2019/1602 and 2022/1644). Article 3 addresses the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions, Article 4 sets the entry into force date, and Article 5 mandates publication. The main change introduced by this decision is the formal update of the EEA Agreement annexes to include these two recent pieces of EU legislation.

For practical purposes, the most important provisions are Articles 1 and 2. These are the articles that actually change the EEA Agreement. By adding Delegated Regulations (EU) 2024/950 and (EU) 2024/2562 to Annexes I and II, the decision makes the specific rules contained within those two EU regulations applicable law in the EEA EFTA states. This means that businesses, authorities, and individuals in Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein must now comply with the updated requirements introduced by these two regulations, for instance, regarding how customs authorities handle quantities declared in health entry documents or the criteria used for selecting samples during official controls, subject always to the specific exceptions mentioned for plant health, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 42/2025 of 20 February 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/771]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee is about updating the legal framework within the European Economic Area (EEA) concerning the tracing of financial transfers. It formally incorporates a new European Union Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, into the EEA Agreement. This new Regulation deals with the information that must accompany transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets, effectively replacing the previous rules on fund transfers (Regulation (EU) 2015/847) within the EEA.

Looking at the structure, the Decision starts with a preamble explaining the necessity of incorporating the new EU Regulation and repealing the old one within the EEA context. The core of the Decision is Article 1. This article amends Annex IX (Financial services) of the EEA Agreement. It does this in two main ways: firstly, by adding a reference to the new Regulation (EU) 2023/1113, and secondly, by replacing the existing entry for the old Regulation (EU) 2015/847 entirely with the reference to the new Regulation. A significant change introduced by this Decision, specifically for the EFTA States party to the EEA Agreement (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein), is an adaptation in Article 1(2) concerning how references to “Union and national restrictive measures” in the incorporated Regulation should be interpreted in their national legal systems – they are to be read as “nationally applicable restrictive measures”. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the text in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 sets out the conditions for the Decision’s entry into force, linking it to notifications under the EEA Agreement and another specific Decision. Article 4 covers the publication requirements.

For anyone needing to understand or apply this Decision, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. This article clearly identifies that Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 is now the applicable law within the EEA for information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets, replacing Regulation (EU) 2015/847. Crucially, the adaptation specified in Article 1(2) is vital for understanding the scope of obligations related to restrictive measures within the EFTA States. Finally, Article 3 is essential for determining the exact date from which these changes take legal effect.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 31/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/761]

Okay, here is a description of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 31/2025 based on the provided text.

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee is a legal instrument used to incorporate new European Union legislation into the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Specifically, it integrates the updated EU framework on electronic road toll systems and cross-border enforcement of toll non-payment into the legal order applicable in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). The aim is to ensure seamless electronic toll payment and facilitate the identification of non-payers across the EU and these EFTA countries.

The Decision itself is structured to amend Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement. Its main provisions involve replacing the reference to the older Directive 2004/52/EC with the new, comprehensive Directive (EU) 2019/520. Crucially, it also adds two new points to incorporate the detailed implementing rules found in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/203 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/204. The Decision notes that the Implementing Regulation 2020/204 repeals the previous Commission Decision 2009/750/EC, which was also incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The primary change is the adoption of the latest EU rules, which are more detailed and expansive than the previous framework.

For anyone involved in road transport or toll collection across Europe, the most important provisions are those that bring Directive (EU) 2019/520 and the two accompanying Regulations (EU) 2020/203 and (EU) 2020/204 into the EEA Agreement. Directive 2019/520 establishes the foundation for the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS), aiming to allow drivers to use a single subscription and a single on-board device to pay tolls throughout the EU and EEA. It also sets up the system for exchanging vehicle and owner data across borders to pursue those who evade tolls. The two Regulations provide the essential technical specifications, operational requirements for EETS providers, rules for vehicle classification, and criteria for the bodies that certify equipment, making the EETS system functional and enforceable. The Decision also includes specific adaptations for the EFTA states regarding how the cross-border data exchange for enforcement, as outlined in Article 23 of the Directive, will be handled under their existing agreements with the EU on police and judicial cooperation.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 15/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/725]

Okay, let’s look at this Decision of the EEA Joint Committee.

This Decision essentially updates the list of European Union legislation that applies in the European Economic Area (EEA) EFTA states – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway – under the terms of the EEA Agreement. Specifically, it incorporates two recent EU regulations concerning food additives into Annex II of the Agreement. This ensures that the rules on the use and specifications of certain substances like sorbic acid and powdered cellulose are harmonised across the entire EEA. It’s a standard process to keep the EEA legal framework aligned with EU law in relevant areas.

The Decision is structured quite simply. It starts by referencing the legal basis in the EEA Agreement and explains which specific EU acts are being incorporated – Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2597 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2608. It also includes a point noting that, due to a specific arrangement concerning agricultural products, the Decision on foodstuffs does not apply to Liechtenstein under certain conditions. The core legal effect is in Article 1, which directly amends Annex II, Chapter XII of the EEA Agreement. It adds references to the two aforementioned EU Regulations under the existing points that cover the main EU food additive legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 231/2012). This is the mechanism by which these new EU rules become part of the EEA legal order. Articles 2, 3, and 4 deal with technicalities like authentic language versions, entry into force, and publication. The change compared to the previous version of the EEA Agreement is simply the addition of these two new EU regulations to the list of applicable laws in Annex II.

For practical purposes, the most important provision is Article 1. By incorporating Regulations (EU) 2024/2597 and 2024/2608, this Decision makes the specific rules contained within those EU regulations legally binding in Iceland and Norway. This means that businesses involved in the production or trade of foodstuffs in or with these countries must now comply with the updated EU rules regarding the use and specifications of food additives like sorbic acid (E 200), potassium sorbate (E 202), propyl gallate (E 310), powdered cellulose (E 460(ii)), and glucono-delta-lactone (E 575). For example, any changes introduced by these EU regulations regarding permitted food categories or maximum levels for these additives will now apply in those EEA EFTA states.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/726]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to incorporate a specific piece of European Union legislation into the body of law applicable within the European Economic Area (EEA). Its essence is to extend the application of an EU regulation concerning food information rules to Iceland and Norway, which are parties to the EEA Agreement alongside the EU Member States. Specifically, it integrates an EU rule modifying requirements related to behenic acid from mustard seeds used in certain food emulsifiers. This ensures a harmonised legal framework for these food information aspects across the internal market and the participating EEA EFTA states.

The structure of the Decision is straightforward. It begins with recitals explaining the necessity of incorporating the relevant EU act and noting a specific exception for Liechtenstein. The operative part consists of four articles. Article 1 is the central provision, amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2512. This addition is the key change introduced by this Decision compared to the previous state of Annex II. Article 2 addresses the linguistic requirements for the incorporated regulation in the EEA context. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 deals with the publication requirements.

For practical use, the most important provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2512, this Decision makes the specific rules contained within that EU Regulation legally binding in Iceland and Norway. This means that economic operators involved in the production or trade of foodstuffs containing behenic acid from mustard seeds used in certain emulsifiers must comply with the updated food information requirements as laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2512 when operating in or trading with these EEA EFTA states. The Decision clarifies that these rules do not apply to Liechtenstein.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 39/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine [2025/769]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to incorporate a specific piece of European Union legislation concerning wine into the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. It adds a Commission Implementing Regulation that registers a new protected designation of origin (PDO) for wine, known as ‘Twente’, to the list of EU acts applicable under Protocol 47 of the EEA Agreement. This Protocol deals with the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine between the EU Member States and the EEA EFTA states. The Decision ensures that the rules and protection for the ‘Twente’ PDO also apply within the EEA, with the specific exception of Liechtenstein.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the necessity of incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1875 and clarifying its non-application to Liechtenstein due to existing agreements. The core legal effect is found in Article 1, which amends Appendix I to Protocol 47 of the EEA Agreement by inserting a new point referencing the specific EU Regulation (2024/1875). Article 2 specifies the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation for publication in the EEA Supplement. Articles 3 and 4 cover the entry into force date and publication requirements, respectively. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal inclusion of the EU rules protecting the ‘Twente’ PDO within the scope of the EEA Agreement’s provisions on wine trade.

For practical purposes, the most important provision is Article 1. By adding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1875 to Protocol 47, this Decision extends the legal protection and specific rules associated with the ‘Twente’ Protected Designation of Origin for wine, as defined in the EU Regulation, to the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway). This means that producers and traders in these countries must respect the rules governing the ‘Twente’ PDO, and conversely, the designation benefits from protection within these markets under the framework of the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 29/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement [2025/740]

Here is a description of the provisions of this EEA Joint Committee Decision:

This EEA Joint Committee Decision serves to update the legal framework governing the use of radio spectrum for mobile communication services on board vessels within the European Economic Area. It formally incorporates a recent European Union Implementing Decision into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the harmonised technical and operational conditions for providing mobile services on ships, as established by the EU, are also applicable in the EEA EFTA states. In essence, it replaces an outdated set of rules with the current EU standard for this specific type of communication service.

The Decision is structured concisely, beginning with recitals that explain the necessity of incorporating the new EU act into the EEA Agreement. This is followed by four articles. The core of the Decision lies in Article 1, which amends Annex XI to the EEA Agreement. The main change introduced is the replacement of the reference to the older Commission Decision 2010/166/EU with the new Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/340. This means that the detailed rules and conditions set out in the 2024 EU Implementing Decision now become part of the EEA legal order, superseding the previous rules.

For anyone involved in providing or using mobile communication services on board vessels operating within the EEA, the most important provision is Article 1. This article directly changes the reference point in the EEA Agreement, making Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/340 the relevant legal text to consult for the harmonised conditions. Compliance with the specific requirements detailed in that 2024 EU Implementing Decision is now mandatory under the EEA Agreement. Article 3 is also key as it specifies the date from which this update takes legal effect, provided the necessary procedural steps under the EEA Agreement are completed.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 14/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/733]

This decision by the EEA Joint Committee is essentially an update to the legal framework governing the import of organic products into the European Economic Area (EEA). It formally incorporates a recent European Union regulation into the EEA Agreement, ensuring that the rules for recognising bodies that certify organic products in countries outside the EU are the same for EEA countries (Iceland and Norway) as they are for EU Member States. This harmonisation is key to facilitating trade while maintaining high standards for organic goods entering the internal market.

The decision itself is structured simply. It begins by referencing the legal basis (the EEA Agreement) and provides context in the preamble, explaining which EU act is being incorporated and noting that this particular legislation on foodstuffs does not apply to Liechtenstein due to existing agreements. The core of the decision is Article 1, which amends Annex II of the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1748. This regulation, in turn, amends an earlier regulation (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378) that lists the specific control bodies recognised by the EU as competent to certify organic products in third countries for import into the Union. Articles 2, 3, and 4 deal with technical aspects like authentic languages, entry into force, and publication. The main change introduced by this decision is the legal extension of the updated list of recognised control bodies (as defined in Regulation 2024/1748) to the EEA.

For anyone involved in importing organic products into Iceland or Norway, the most important provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1748, this decision means that only organic products certified by the control bodies listed in that specific EU regulation can be imported from third countries into these EEA states. Businesses need to consult Regulation (EU) 2024/1748 (which amends 2021/1378) to verify that their third-country suppliers are certified by an officially recognised body. The note regarding Liechtenstein’s exclusion is also vital for understanding the geographical scope of this decision.

: As the underlying EU regulation concerns the recognition of control bodies in third countries for the import of organic products, it is relevant for trade with any third country exporting such products to the EU/EEA, including Ukraine. Businesses importing organic products from Ukraine into the EEA must ensure that the certification body used in Ukraine is one of those recognised under the incorporated EU regulation (2024/1748).

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 25/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/730]

This is a Decision by the EEA Joint Committee. Its main purpose is to integrate a specific piece of European Union legislation, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2444, into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). By doing so, the rules contained in that EU Regulation, which concern technical requirements for radio equipment, become applicable in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). Essentially, it ensures that the latest EU rules on radio equipment requirements are extended to these countries.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins with a preamble explaining the legal basis (Article 98 of the EEA Agreement) and the reason for the Decision – the need to incorporate the specified EU Delegated Regulation into the EEA Agreement. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) of the EEA Agreement. Specifically, it adds a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2444 under the existing entry for Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30. Article 2 deals with the authenticity of the text in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, conditional upon necessary notifications. Article 4 mandates its publication. The change compared to previous versions of Annex II is the addition of this specific EU Delegated Regulation, meaning the rules it contains are now part of the EEA legal order. Based on the preamble, the incorporated Delegated Regulation 2023/2444 itself amends an earlier regulation (2022/30) regarding the date of application of essential requirements for radio equipment and corrects it.

For practical use, the most important provisions are Article 1 and Article 3. Article 1 is crucial because it precisely identifies *which* EU act is being incorporated (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2444) and *where* it is being added within the EEA Agreement structure (Annex II, Chapter XVIII, point 4zzu). This tells you exactly which new rules are being introduced into the EEA framework concerning radio equipment. Article 3 is equally vital as it specifies the date from which this Decision, and thus the incorporated EU rules, will take effect in the EEA EFTA states, provided the necessary constitutional procedures have been completed. This determines when businesses and authorities in those countries must comply with the updated requirements.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/726]

This is a Decision by the EEA Joint Committee, the body responsible for managing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Its essence is to formally incorporate a specific European Union legal act into the EEA Agreement, thereby extending its application to the EEA EFTA states (Norway and Iceland). The EU act in question is a Commission Delegated Regulation concerning food information rules, specifically related to the use of behenic acid derived from mustard seeds in certain food emulsifiers. This ensures a harmonised legal framework for these specific food ingredients across the EU and the participating EEA EFTA countries.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins with a preamble outlining the legal basis for the Decision (Article 98 of the EEA Agreement) and explaining the purpose: to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2512. The preamble also includes a specific point noting that legislation regarding foodstuffs does not apply to Liechtenstein under certain conditions related to its agreement with Switzerland, and thus this Decision does not apply there. The operative part consists of four articles. Article 1 is the core provision; it amends Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to the specific EU Delegated Regulation (2024/2512) under the entry for Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information. Article 2 deals with the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, conditional upon necessary notifications. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision. Compared to previous versions of Annex II of the EEA Agreement, this Decision introduces a specific update by adding a reference to the new EU rule on behenic acid from mustard seeds.

For practical use, the most important provision is Article 1. By adding Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2512 to Annex II of the EEA Agreement, this Decision makes the rules contained in that EU Regulation legally binding in Norway and Iceland. This means that the specific requirements introduced by Regulation 2024/2512 concerning the provision of food information, particularly regarding behenic acid from mustard seeds used in certain emulsifiers, must now be followed by food business operators in these EEA EFTA states, just as they are in the EU Member States. The note in the preamble about Liechtenstein is also crucial for understanding the geographical scope of the Decision’s application.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 23/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/764]

Okay, let’s look at this Decision of the EEA Joint Committee.

This Decision is essentially a legal bridge, incorporating two specific European Union regulations concerning the approval of certain pesticide active substances into the legal framework of the European Economic Area. Its purpose is to ensure that the rules governing the use of these substances in the EU Member States are also applied in the EEA EFTA states – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. This maintains the necessary legal homogeneity across the internal market regarding plant protection products.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins with recitals explaining the need to incorporate the relevant EU acts into the EEA Agreement. The core of the Decision is found in Article 1, which directly amends Annex II (specifically Chapter XV relating to technical regulations on plant protection products) of the EEA Agreement. It does this by adding references to two recent Commission Implementing Regulations. Article 2 deals with the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions for publication, and Article 3 sets the entry into force date. The main change introduced by this Decision is the formal update of Annex II to include the two specified EU regulations, thereby extending their legal effect to the EEA EFTA states.

For anyone dealing with plant protection products in the EEA, the most important provision is Article 1. This article mandates the incorporation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2186, which renews the approval of the active substance captan, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2198, which renews the approval of the active substance folpet. This means that the specific conditions, restrictions, and requirements detailed in those two EU regulations for the use of products containing captan and folpet are now legally binding not just in the EU, but also in Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Compliance with these renewed approval conditions is therefore mandatory across the entire EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 22/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/741]

This decision by the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate a specific piece of European Union legislation concerning the approval of a chemical substance into the legal framework governing the relationship between the EU Member States and the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). Specifically, it incorporates the EU regulation that renewed the approval for the active substance glyphosate. The aim is to ensure that the rules regarding this substance are applied uniformly across the entire European Economic Area.

The act is structured as a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee, comprising a preamble explaining the necessity of the incorporation and four articles. The central provision is Article 1, which details the amendment to Annex II, Chapter XV, of the EEA Agreement. This amendment is performed by adding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 to the list of EU acts incorporated into the EEA Agreement. It does this by adding a reference to the Regulation under an existing point related to pesticide legislation (point 13a) and also by inserting the Regulation as a new, distinct point (point 13zzzzzzzzzzzzzzr) in the list. This effectively updates the EEA Agreement to reflect the EU’s latest decision on glyphosate approval.

For practical purposes, the most significant provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 into the EEA Agreement, this decision makes the rules contained within that EU Regulation legally binding in the EEA EFTA states. This means that the conditions, restrictions, and duration of the renewed approval for the active substance glyphosate, as decided at the EU level, will now apply directly within Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, just as they do within the European Union. This provides clarity and harmonisation for businesses, regulators, and users of products containing glyphosate across the entire EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/739]

Here is a description of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/2025:

This Decision by the EEA Joint Committee is a standard legal act within the framework of the European Economic Area Agreement. Its primary function is to ensure that relevant European Union legislation is extended and made applicable to the EEA EFTA States, namely Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Specifically, this Decision incorporates a recent EU Implementing Regulation concerning the calculation of offsetting requirements for aviation emissions under the EU’s Emissions Trading System, linking it to the international CORSIA scheme, into the EEA Agreement’s environmental annex.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward and typical for such acts. It begins by citing the legal basis in the EEA Agreement and explaining the necessity of incorporating the specified EU Regulation. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which mandates the insertion of a new point into Annex XX (Environment) of the EEA Agreement, referencing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1879. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions, Article 3 sets the entry into force date conditional on necessary notifications, and Article 4 deals with publication requirements. Compared to the previous version of Annex XX, the change introduced by this Decision is simply the addition of this new reference to the specific EU Implementing Regulation.

For anyone concerned with the practical application of environmental law regarding aviation in the EEA, the most important provision is undoubtedly Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1879 into Annex XX, this Decision makes the rules laid down in that EU Regulation legally binding and applicable within the EEA EFTA states. This means that the detailed provisions on how to calculate offsetting requirements for aviation emissions, as required under the EU ETS Directive in the context of CORSIA, will now apply directly to relevant operators in Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, ensuring alignment with the rules in the EU Member States.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 30/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/732]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee incorporates Directive (EU) 2015/413 on facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences into the EEA Agreement. This means the rules allowing EU countries to exchange vehicle registration data to identify traffic offenders will now also apply between EU Member States and the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein). The Decision includes specific adaptations for the EFTA states regarding the procedures for this data exchange and grants them additional time for implementation.

The Decision begins with recitals explaining the rationale for incorporating the Directive and clarifying how certain references within the Directive, particularly those related to information exchange procedures under Council Decision 2008/616/JHA, will apply to the EFTA states based on their existing agreements with the EU. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally inserts Directive (EU) 2015/413 into Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement. This is the main change introduced by this act compared to the previous state of Annex XIII. Article 1 also sets out specific adaptations for the EFTA states, detailing how the information exchange procedures will be understood for Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein by referencing their respective agreements. Furthermore, it adds a derogation allowing EFTA states to postpone the transposition deadline for the Directive by six months after this Decision enters into force. The subsequent articles cover the authenticity of the text in Icelandic and Norwegian, the conditions for the Decision’s entry into force, and its publication requirements.

From a practical standpoint, the most important provisions are the incorporation of Directive (EU) 2015/413 itself, which enables the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data to pursue traffic offences like speeding or drink-driving committed abroad. The Decision clarifies precisely how this data exchange mechanism will function for Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein by linking it to their established legal frameworks for cooperation with the EU. Additionally, the provision granting EFTA states a six-month extension for implementing the Directive’s requirements after the Decision takes effect is significant for national legislative processes.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 41/2025 of 20 February 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/765]

Okay, here is the description of the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 41/2025:

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee is a legal act that formally incorporates Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, known as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). Its essence is to extend the comprehensive EU framework for regulating crypto-assets, issuers of such assets, and crypto-asset service providers to the EFTA States that are part of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This ensures a harmonised approach to crypto-asset markets across the entire EEA area, promoting legal certainty and market integrity.

The Decision is structured around amending Annex IX (Financial services) of the EEA Agreement. The core of the act is Article 1, which first inserts the MiCA Regulation itself into the Annex. Crucially, Article 1 then provides a long list of detailed adaptations necessary for the Regulation to function within the specific legal and institutional framework of the EEA Agreement. These adaptations clarify how terms like “Member State” and “competent authorities” apply to EFTA States and, most significantly, define the respective roles and cooperation mechanisms between EU bodies like the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and the European Central Bank (ECB), and their EFTA counterparts, primarily the EFTA Surveillance Authority and national EFTA competent authorities. Article 2 concerns linguistic authenticity, Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates publication. The main change introduced by this Decision is the legal applicability of the MiCA Regulation in the EFTA States, adjusted through numerous specific provisions to integrate it into the existing EEA legal order.

For practical use, the most important provisions are the detailed adaptations listed under Article 1(1). These adaptations are key because they explain *how* MiCA applies in the EFTA States. They specify, for instance, which EFTA institutions are responsible for supervision and enforcement under MiCA, how they interact and cooperate with their EU counterparts (EBA, ESMA, ECB), particularly concerning significant crypto-assets and service providers. The adaptations also clarify procedures for investigations, on-site inspections, supervisory measures, and the imposition of fines or penalty payments, often assigning roles to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and referencing the jurisdiction of the EFTA Court for review. Furthermore, there are specific adjustments regarding timelines for the application of certain MiCA provisions in the EFTA States compared to the original EU Regulation’s dates. These adaptations are essential for anyone operating in or supervising the crypto-asset space within the EEA EFTA States.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 33/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/763]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee integrates a specific European Union implementing act concerning rail passenger rights into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). Its main purpose is to extend the application of EU rules on how rail passengers can request reimbursement or compensation for travel disruptions to the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). This ensures a common approach to handling such requests across the EU and these associated countries.

The Decision is structured simply, containing four articles. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement by inserting a new point that references Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/949. This act establishes a common form for rail passengers to use when requesting reimbursement or compensation for delays, missed connections, or cancellations, based on the existing EU Rail Passenger Rights Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/782). Article 2 specifies that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated Regulation are authentic. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, contingent upon necessary notifications under the EEA Agreement. This Decision does not amend a previous version of itself but rather updates the EEA Agreement by adding a new piece of EU legislation to its scope.

For rail passengers and operators within the EEA EFTA states, the most important provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/949, this Decision makes the common form for reimbursement and compensation requests legally applicable in these countries. This means that rail operators covered by the rules must accept requests submitted using this standardised form, and passengers can expect a consistent method for seeking compensation or reimbursement for travel disruptions, aligning the process with that already in place in the European Union.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/739]

This is a Decision adopted by the EEA Joint Committee. Its primary function is to amend Annex XX, which covers Environment, of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). By doing so, it incorporates a specific piece of European Union legislation, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1879, into the legal framework applicable within the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). The incorporated Regulation lays down detailed rules concerning the calculation of offsetting requirements related to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) within the context of the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins by stating the legal basis for the Decision, which is Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, and provides a brief explanation in the ‘Whereas’ clauses for the need to incorporate the EU Regulation. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally adds a new point, 21alw, to Annex XX of the EEA Agreement, referencing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1879. Article 2 addresses linguistic aspects, specifying that the Icelandic and Norwegian texts of the incorporated Regulation, as published in the EEA Supplement, will be authentic. Article 3 sets the entry into force date for the Decision, conditional upon the necessary notifications being made under the EEA Agreement. Compared to the previous version of Annex XX, this Decision specifically adds the detailed rules contained in Regulation 2024/1879 regarding CORSIA offsetting calculations under the EU ETS to the list of applicable environmental legislation in the EEA.

For practical purposes, the most important provisions are Article 1 and Article 3. Article 1 is key because it identifies the specific EU Implementing Regulation (2024/1879) that is being integrated, meaning its rules on calculating CORSIA offsetting requirements under the EU ETS will now apply in the EEA EFTA states. Article 3 is equally important as it determines the date from which this incorporation takes legal effect, which is set for 8 February 2025, provided the constitutional requirements in the EEA EFTA states have been met.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 30/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/732]

Okay, let’s look at this Decision from the EEA Joint Committee.

This Decision essentially extends the application of a key piece of EU legislation on road safety to the European Economic Area EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Specifically, it incorporates Directive (EU) 2015/413, which facilitates the cross-border exchange of information on traffic offences, into the EEA Agreement. The goal is to ensure that drivers who commit traffic offences abroad within the EEA can be identified and pursued, thereby improving road safety across the entire area.

Looking at the structure, the Decision is quite concise. It begins with introductory recitals explaining the context and the legal basis for incorporating the EU Directive into the EEA Agreement. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally inserts Directive (EU) 2015/413 into Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement. This article also contains crucial adaptations specific to the EFTA States. Articles 2, 3, and 4 deal with technical aspects like the authenticity of language versions, entry into force, and publication. This Decision itself *is* the change to the EEA Agreement, adding this specific EU Directive to the list of applicable legislation for the EFTA States; it doesn’t amend a previous version of the Decision itself.

For practical purposes, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. The main point is that Directive (EU) 2015/413 is now part of the EEA Agreement. This means the system allowing authorities in one EEA country to access vehicle registration data from another EEA country to identify offenders for certain road-safety-related traffic offences (like speeding, red light running, drink-driving, etc.) now applies between EU Member States and the EEA EFTA States. The adaptations are also significant: Adaptation (a) clarifies how the data exchange procedures referred to in the Directive, which are based on EU justice and home affairs cooperation mechanisms, apply to the EFTA States through their existing agreements with the EU. Adaptation (b) provides the EFTA States with a specific deadline for implementing the Directive nationally – six months after this Decision enters into force, rather than the original deadline set in the Directive itself. These provisions are key to understanding how the cross-border enforcement of traffic rules will now function within the broader EEA framework.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 40/2025 of 20 February 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/770]

Good day. This document is a Decision adopted by the EEA Joint Committee. Its core purpose is to formally incorporate recent European Union legislation concerning digital operational resilience in the financial sector into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). This ensures that the rules established by the EU in this area will also apply in the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway).

Regarding the structure and main provisions, this Decision is quite straightforward. It consists of four articles. Article 1 is the main substance, detailing the amendments to Annex IX (Financial services) of the EEA Agreement. It specifies that two key EU legal acts are being added: Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (the Digital Operational Resilience Act – DORA Regulation) and Directive (EU) 2022/2556 (the DORA Amending Directive). The Decision lists the specific points within Annex IX that are being modified to include these acts. Crucially, Article 1 also includes a detailed list of adaptations necessary for the DORA Regulation to function correctly within the EEA legal framework. Article 2 concerns the authenticity of the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions, Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 deals with publication.

For practical use, the most important provisions are undoubtedly the incorporation of the DORA Regulation and Directive themselves, along with the specific adaptations listed in Article 1(3) for the Regulation. The incorporation means that financial entities and ICT third-party service providers operating in the EEA EFTA states will be subject to the same digital operational resilience requirements as those in the EU. The adaptations are vital because they modify how the EU Regulation’s provisions, particularly those referencing EU institutions like the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the EU Court of Justice, apply in the EEA context. For example, they clarify the role of the EFTA Surveillance Authority as a Lead Overseer for critical ICT third-party service providers established in an EFTA State and outline cooperation mechanisms with the ESAs. They also adapt references to EU law to refer to the EEA Agreement and national law, and modify the date of application for the EFTA States.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 4/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/750]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to update the list of EU legal acts applicable within the European Economic Area (EEA), specifically concerning veterinary and phytosanitary matters. Its core function is to incorporate recent European Union regulations related to animal feed additives into the body of the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the same rules on the authorisation and use of these substances apply in the EEA countries (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, with a specific exception for Liechtenstein regarding feedingstuffs) as in the EU Member States.

The Decision is structured with introductory recitals explaining the need to incorporate specific EU acts, followed by operative articles. Article 1 is the central part, detailing the necessary amendments to Chapter II of Annex I to the EEA Agreement. It adds several new points listing Commission Implementing Regulations from 2024 that authorise or renew the authorisation of various feed additives. It also amends existing points in Annex I to reflect amendments made by some of the new regulations and explicitly deletes points corresponding to older regulations that have been repealed by the newly incorporated acts. Article 2 confirms the authenticity of the translated texts, Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 covers publication requirements. The main structural change to Annex I is the addition of nine new entries for recent feed additive regulations and the removal of two older, superseded regulations.

For businesses and individuals operating in the EEA’s animal feed sector, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. Specifically, point 3 adds nine new Commission Implementing Regulations from 2024 to the list of EEA-applicable law. These regulations cover the authorisation or renewal of various feed additives, including enzymes, a flavouring, probiotics, an anticoccidial, and essential oils, specifying for which animal species they are authorised. Point 4 is equally significant as it removes two older regulations (Regulation (EC) No 1443/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 304/2014) from the EEA legal framework, meaning they are no longer applicable. Points 1 and 2 are also relevant as they show how two existing entries in Annex I are amended by two of the new regulations. These changes directly impact which feed additives are permitted and under what conditions in the EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 1/2025 of 9 January 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification), Annex X (Services in general) and Protocol 37 (containing the list provided for in Article 101) to the EEA Agreement [2025/749]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee integrates Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTA) into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). This means the framework for assessing new health technologies, such as medicines and medical devices, established by this EU Regulation will now also apply in the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). The Decision ensures a harmonised approach to HTA across the EU and these associated countries.

The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the need for incorporation, followed by six articles. Article 1 amends Annex II of the EEA Agreement, specifically chapters dealing with medicinal products and public health, by inserting Regulation (EU) 2021/2282. Crucially, Article 1 also adds provisions detailing how EFTA States will participate in the EU’s Member State Coordination Group on HTA – they will be fully associated with the work, having similar rights and obligations to EU Member States, but without voting rights. Their positions and divergent scientific opinions must be recorded. Article 2 amends Annex X, linking the HTA Regulation to the existing provisions on services, particularly cross-border healthcare. Article 3 amends Protocol 37, which lists committees where EFTA experts participate, by adding the HTA Coordination Group. Articles 4, 5, and 6 cover language versions, entry into force, and publication. The main change introduced by this Decision is the extension of the EU’s HTA framework to the EEA EFTA States and defining their role in the related coordination body.

For practical purposes, the most significant provisions are found in Article 1. Points 2 and 4 of Article 1 formally incorporate Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 into the EEA Agreement, making its rules on joint clinical assessments and joint scientific consultations applicable within the EEA EFTA States. Even more importantly, points 1 and 3 of Article 1 lay out the specific terms for EFTA participation in the EU’s HTA Coordination Group. This means EFTA experts will be involved in the discussions and work of the group, contributing their expertise and receiving information, ensuring their national HTA bodies can benefit from and contribute to the joint work, even though the final voting decisions remain with the EU Member States. This structured participation is key to the effective functioning of the integrated HTA framework across the EEA. Article 2 is also important as it explicitly links the HTA framework to cross-border healthcare services, highlighting its relevance for patients seeking treatment in other EEA countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 17/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/731]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to update the list of EU legislation applicable within the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, it incorporates a new EU Implementing Regulation concerning the coordinated control programme for pesticide residues in food into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the same monitoring standards and programmes for pesticide residues apply in the EEA EFTA states as in the EU Member States. The Decision also formally removes the previous, now-repealed, control programme regulation from the EEA Agreement.

The Decision is structured with recitals explaining the legal basis and necessity for the incorporation and repeal, followed by four articles. Article 1 is the core of the Decision, amending Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. It adds a new point referencing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/989, which details the coordinated multiannual control programme for pesticide residues for 2025, 2026, and 2027. This article also includes specific adaptations for Iceland and Norway regarding a table within the incorporated Regulation. Crucially, Article 1 also mandates the deletion of the reference to the previous control programme, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/731, from Annex II of the EEA Agreement, with this deletion taking effect from 1 September 2025. Articles 2, 3, and 4 cover technical aspects such as the authenticity of texts in Icelandic and Norwegian, the entry into force date, and publication requirements. The main change compared to the previous situation is the replacement of the reference to the 2023/731 Regulation with the 2024/989 Regulation in the EEA Agreement’s Annex II, thereby updating the applicable control programme period and details.

For practical application, the most significant provisions are found in Article 1. Article 1(1) means that the specific requirements, sampling frequencies, and analytical methods for monitoring pesticide residues in food for the years 2025, 2026, and 2027, as detailed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/989, are now legally binding within the EEA EFTA states (Iceland and Norway, with the noted adaptations). Article 1(2) is equally important as it clarifies that the previous control programme regulation (EU) 2023/731 will no longer be applicable under the EEA Agreement from 1 September 2025. It is also relevant to note recital (3), which explicitly states that this Decision does not apply to Liechtenstein.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 21/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/777]

Good morning. Let’s look at this Decision from the EEA Joint Committee.

1. **Essence of the Act:** This is a Decision adopted by the EEA Joint Committee. Its primary function is to formally incorporate a specific piece of European Union legislation, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574, into the legal framework of the European Economic Area (EEA). This particular EU Regulation sets out detailed rules for identifying unacceptable co-formulants used in plant protection products. By incorporating it, the rules established by this EU Regulation will become applicable in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), ensuring a harmonised approach to these substances across the EEA.

2. **Structure, Main Provisions, and Changes:** The Decision is structured with a preamble explaining the legal basis (Article 98 of the EEA Agreement) and the necessity of incorporating the specified EU Regulation. The core of the Decision is contained in its articles. Article 1 is the central provision; it explicitly states that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574 is inserted into Annex II, Chapter XV of the EEA Agreement as point 13zzzzzzzzzzzzzzq. Article 2 addresses the legal authenticity of the text of the incorporated Regulation in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date, which is conditional upon the necessary notifications under the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision. This Decision itself is an amendment to the EEA Agreement, specifically Annex II, by adding a new point to incorporate the identified EU act. It doesn’t describe changes compared to previous versions of *this specific Decision*, as it’s a new act incorporating a particular EU law into the Agreement.

3. **Most Important Provisions for Use:** For practical purposes, the most significant provision is Article 1. This article clearly identifies *which* specific EU legal act (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574) is being integrated into the EEA Agreement and precisely *where* it is being added (Annex II, Chapter XV). This is crucial for identifying the new rule that applies. Article 3 is also very important as it determines the exact date from which this Decision, and thus the incorporated EU Regulation, becomes legally binding and applicable in the EEA EFTA states.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement [2025/768]

Okay, let’s look at this Decision of the EEA Joint Committee.

This act, Decision No 38/2025, is a standard legal instrument used within the framework of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Its primary function is to ensure that relevant new EU legislation is extended to apply in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). Specifically, this Decision incorporates a recent EU Regulation concerning international accounting standards into the EEA Agreement, thereby making those standards legally binding in those countries.

The structure of this Decision is quite straightforward and typical for an EEA Joint Committee act. It begins by citing the legal basis under the EEA Agreement (Article 98). The ‘whereas’ clauses explain the rationale – that a specific EU Regulation (Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317) needs to be incorporated into the Agreement. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement by adding a reference to the aforementioned Commission Regulation. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the text in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates its publication. The change compared to the previous version of Annex XXII is precisely the addition of this single reference to Regulation (EU) 2024/1317.

For anyone dealing with company law or accounting standards in the EEA EFTA states, the most important provision is Article 1. This is the provision that has the practical effect of extending the application of Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317 to Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. Since Regulation (EU) 2024/1317 amends prior rules regarding International Accounting Standard 7 and International Financial Reporting Standard 7, companies operating in these countries will now be required to comply with the updated versions of these accounting standards as adopted by the EU. This incorporation ensures legal homogeneity in this specific area across the entire EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement [2025/734]

Okay, let’s look at this EEA Joint Committee Decision.

This Decision is essentially an update mechanism for the European Economic Area Agreement. It incorporates specific new European Union legislation into the Agreement, ensuring that the rules on certain matters are the same across the EU Member States and the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, with a specific note for Liechtenstein in this case). Specifically, this Decision integrates recent EU rules concerning feed additives for animals into the EEA legal framework. This ensures a harmonised approach to the authorisation and use of these substances in animal feed within the entire EEA.

Looking at the structure, the Decision starts by referencing the legal basis in the EEA Agreement (Article 98) and includes recitals explaining *why* the Decision is being made – namely, to incorporate two specific EU Commission Implementing Regulations from 2024 into the Agreement. It also includes a recital explaining that legislation regarding feedingstuffs does not apply to Liechtenstein under certain conditions related to its agreement with Switzerland. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which details the specific amendments to Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) of the EEA Agreement by adding these two EU Regulations to the list of applicable acts. Article 2 deals with the authenticity of the texts in Icelandic and Norwegian, Article 3 sets the entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns publication.

For practical purposes, the most important provisions are found in Article 1. This article explicitly lists the two EU acts that are now being made part of the EEA Agreement:
1. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2412: This Regulation concerns the renewal of the authorisation for a specific preparation of *Pediococcus pentosaceus* DSM 23688 as a feed additive for all animal species. It also amends a previous implementing regulation (EU) No 84/2014.
2. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2414: This Regulation concerns the authorisation of juniper essential oil and juniper tincture derived from *Juniperus communis L.* for use as feed additives across all animal species.

These additions mean that the rules set out in these two EU Regulations regarding the authorisation and use of these specific feed additives will now apply within the EEA EFTA states, just as they do in the EU Member States, subject to the specific arrangements mentioned for Liechtenstein. Article 3 is also key as it specifies that the Decision enters into force on 8 February 2025, provided the necessary notifications under the EEA Agreement have been made.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 34/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/767]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee serves to integrate a specific piece of European Union law into the legal framework of the European Economic Area. Specifically, it incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2108, which deals with urgent aviation security measures concerning the screening equipment used for liquids, aerosols, and gels. The purpose is to ensure that the same updated security standards apply in the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) as in the EU Member States.

The act is structured with introductory recitals explaining the necessity of the incorporation, followed by articles detailing the legal effect. The main provision is Article 1, which formally amends Annex XIII (Transport) of the EEA Agreement. It does this by adding a reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2108 under the existing entry for the main aviation security regulation, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998. This action signifies the legal extension of the new EU security measures to the EEA EFTA countries.

For practical purposes, the most significant provision is Article 1. By incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2108, this Decision makes the specific requirements outlined in that EU Regulation legally binding for the EEA EFTA states. This means that airports and relevant authorities in these countries must now adhere to the urgent aviation security measures related to the screening of liquids, aerosols, and gels, as mandated by the incorporated EU Regulation.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/2025 of 7 February 2025 amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement [2025/768]

This decision of the EEA Joint Committee incorporates Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317 into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). This specific EU Regulation amends a previous one (Regulation (EU) 2023/1803) concerning the adoption of International Accounting Standard 7 and International Financial Reporting Standard 7 within the EU legal framework. By incorporating it, the decision ensures that these updated international accounting standards, as endorsed by the EU, also become part of the EEA legal order applicable in Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The structure of this decision is straightforward. It begins with recitals explaining the basis for the decision and the need to incorporate the specified EU Regulation into the EEA Agreement. The core of the decision is found in its articles. Article 1 is the main provision, directing the amendment of Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement by adding a specific reference to Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317. This addition is made within the existing point 10bb, which already lists Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1803. Article 2 addresses the authenticity of the text in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Article 3 sets the entry into force date, which is conditional upon the necessary notifications under the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the decision. The change compared to the previous state is the explicit inclusion of Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317 in the list of EU acts applicable under the EEA Agreement.

For practical use, the most important provision is Article 1. This article precisely identifies which EU legal act is being incorporated into the EEA Agreement – Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1317 – and specifies exactly where it is added within Annex XXII. This tells businesses and legal practitioners in the EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) that the rules introduced by this EU Regulation regarding International Accounting Standard 7 and International Financial Reporting Standard 7 are now applicable to them under the terms of the EEA Agreement. Article 3 is also crucial as it determines the date from which this incorporation takes legal effect.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 40/2025 of 20 February 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/770]

Here is a description of the provisions of this EEA Joint Committee Decision:

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee incorporates two key pieces of European Union legislation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector – Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA Regulation) and Directive (EU) 2022/2556 (DORA Directive) – into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). This means that the rules established by DORA will now apply to the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) that are part of the EEA. The aim is to ensure a consistent framework for managing digital risks across the entire EEA financial sector.

The structure of this Decision is straightforward. It begins with recitals explaining the necessity of incorporating the DORA Regulation and Directive into the EEA Agreement. The core of the Decision is Article 1, which details the specific amendments made to Annex IX (Financial services) of the EEA Agreement. Article 2 concerns the authenticity of the texts in Icelandic and Norwegian. Articles 3 and 4 cover the entry into force and publication requirements. The main changes compared to the previous version of Annex IX are the addition of the DORA Regulation and Directive as new legal acts applicable under the EEA Agreement, and the inclusion of specific adaptations to the DORA Regulation to make it function correctly within the EEA legal framework.

The main provisions of this Decision that are most important for its use are found in Article 1. Firstly, it explicitly adds Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 and Directive (EU) 2022/2556 to Annex IX of the EEA Agreement. This is the legal basis for applying these EU acts in the EFTA States. Secondly, and crucially, Article 1 includes a detailed list of adaptations to the DORA Regulation. These adaptations clarify how the Regulation’s provisions will apply in the EEA context, particularly regarding the roles of the EFTA States’ competent authorities and the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) in relation to the EU’s European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs). For example, adaptations specify that references to “Member State(s)” and “competent authorities” include EFTA States and their authorities, outline cooperation requirements between ESAs and the ESA, define the ESA’s role as Lead Overseer for critical ICT third-party service providers established in EFTA States, and adapt provisions concerning the Oversight Forum, joint examinations, penalties, court review, and the date of application in the EFTA States. The application date for EFTA States is set later than the EU date, allowing national law to designate a date no later than 12 months after this Decision enters into force.

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as of 1 January 2025 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004)

Here is a description of the provisions of this EFTA Surveillance Authority notice:

This notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) sets out the specific base rates to be used for calculating interest on state aid recovery and for determining reference and discount rates in the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). These rates are calculated according to ESA’s established state aid rules and guidelines. The rates published in this notice are the ones that will be applicable starting from 1 January 2025.

The structure of this notice is straightforward. It begins by identifying itself as a notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority concerning state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates. It clearly states its legal basis, referring to specific parts of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and an earlier ESA Decision (No 195/04/COL), as well as an amendment (Decision No 788/08/COL) that modified the method for setting these rates. The main provision is a table that lists the determined base rates for each of the three EFTA States: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. The notice specifies that these rates are applicable from 1 January 2025. It also clarifies that these are base rates and that appropriate margins must be added according to the State Aid Guidelines to arrive at the final applicable reference rates. As this is a notice publishing rates applicable from a specific future date, it effectively updates the previously applicable rates, although the text itself does not detail the previous figures.

For anyone needing to apply state aid rules in the EFTA States, the most important provisions are the specific base rates listed in the table and the date from which they apply. Specifically, the base rate for Iceland is set at 9.27%, for Liechtenstein at 1.64%, and for Norway at 4.71%, all effective from 1 January 2025. It is crucial to remember that these are the *base* rates, and the actual *applicable reference rates* will be higher, as they require the addition of appropriate margins as defined in the ESA State Aid Guidelines.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision No 019/25/COL of 26 February 2025 to amend Annex II to Delegated Decision No 203/21/COL regarding the approval of national measures of Norway and Iceland designed to limit the impact of certain diseases of aquatic animals in accordance with Article 226(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2025/879]

Okay, here is the description of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Delegated Decision No 019/25/COL:

This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision updates the list of areas in Norway and Iceland where national programmes are in place to eradicate or control specific aquatic animal diseases not covered by the main EU listed diseases. It specifically incorporates a new area in Norway into an existing eradication programme for a parasitic disease affecting salmon. The decision ensures that these national measures, which may include movement restrictions, are formally approved under the relevant EEA rules derived from EU animal health law.

The decision begins by citing the legal basis in the EFTA and EEA Agreements and the relevant EU Regulation on animal health (Regulation (EU) 2016/429), as adapted for the EEA. The recitals explain the context: Norway and Iceland can adopt national measures for non-listed diseases posing a significant risk, subject to notification and approval by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, especially if movement restrictions are involved. It mentions that eradication programmes should ideally not exceed six years. The recitals then detail the specific reason for this amendment: the detection of *Gyrodactylus salaris* in the Bergerelva river in Norway and Norway’s subsequent update to its eradication programme to include this area. The Authority has assessed and approved these measures. The operative part consists of three articles. Article 1 is the core provision, stating that Annex II of the previous Decision No 203/21/COL is replaced by the Annex attached to this decision. This Annex II lists the areas in Norway and Iceland with approved eradication programmes for certain aquatic diseases. Article 2 sets the entry into force date as the day of signature, and Article 3 addresses the decision to Iceland and Norway.

For practical use, the most important part of this decision is the Annex. It provides the updated list of specific water catchment areas in Norway that are officially under an approved eradication programme for *Gyrodactylus salaris*. This list includes areas in Møre and Romsdal, Buskerud, and Vestfold. The key change introduced by this particular decision is the addition of the Bergerelva water catchment area in Buskerud to this list. This means that specific national measures approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority apply to these listed areas to control the disease, which is crucial information for anyone involved in the movement of aquatic animals to or from these locations. The decision also references the previous decision (203/21/COL) and its other amendments, indicating that this is an update within an ongoing framework.