Legal Act Review
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/882
This regulation updates the list of control bodies authorized to conduct inspections and issue organic certificates in third countries for imports into the EU. Specifically, it recognizes ‘Bio Latina Certificadora’, ‘Primus Auditing Operations Mexico’ and ‘PT BIOCert Indonesia’. It also extends the recognition scope for ‘ACO Certification Limited’, ‘ACT Organic Company Limited’, ‘CCPB Srl’, ‘Ecocert SAS’, ‘Mayacert S.A.’ and ‘OneCert International Private Limited’. Notably, ‘Balkan Biocert Macedonia DOOEL Skopje’ has been removed from the list. The regulation also includes updates concerning ‘Control Union Certifications B.V.’, ‘Ecocert SAS’, ‘Japan Organic and Natural Foods Association’ and ‘Organic Crop Improvement Association International Inc’ related to Japan. This ensures that only compliant organic products are imported into the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/883
This act modifies Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 concerning the recognition of third countries and control bodies for importing organic products. It updates the list of recognized third countries, making specific changes to Australia, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States. Notably, the scope of recognition for Japan now includes live animals, unprocessed animal products, and all processed agricultural products for use as food. Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 has been removed, with product categories integrated into Annex I.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/902
This regulation amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, updating the restricted zones (Zones I, II, and III) within the EU due to African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreaks. The affected Member States are Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Czechia, Greece and Croatia. Zone changes in Italy and Slovakia have been made in response to recent outbreaks in wild and domestic pigs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/900
This act amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, concerning the import of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat from third countries. It responds to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks in Canada and the United States and also addresses the animal health situation in the United Kingdom, by temporarily suspending and reauthorizing specific zones. It also corrects errors in geographical descriptions for zones US-2.967 and US-2.997.
Council Regulation (EU) 2025/903
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, introducing a new listing criterion for individuals or entities involved in transferring assets from sanctioned Russian businesspersons. It also clarifies that sanctioned businesspersons can’t evade sanctions by claiming asset transfers without providing solid evidence. The aim is to prevent sanctions circumvention.
Judgment on Biogena GmbH & Co. KG v Aziende Chimiche Riunite Angelini Francesco SpA (ACRAF SpA)
The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between Biogena’s “BIOGENA MOMENTS” trademark and ACRAF SpA’s earlier “MOMENT” trademark for similar goods. The court determined that the inclusion of “MOMENT” within “BIOGENA MOMENTS” could mislead consumers into believing the products originate from the same company.
Judgment on Karneolis LTD v EUIPO (KinkySwipe)
The General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision to reject Karneolis LTD’s “KinkySwipe” trademark application because of a likelihood of confusion with Match Group LLC’s earlier “SWIPE” trademark. The court agreed that the services were similar and that the signs were visually and phonetically similar, leading to a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Judgment on Bosca Cora SpA v Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. (“It’s B”)
The General Court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bosca Cora SpA’s “It’s B” trademark and Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A.’s earlier figurative mark “B!”. The court focused on the visual, phonetic, and conceptual differences between the marks, concluding that the relevant public would perceive these differences and that the letter “b” had a weak distinctive character.
Judgment on Bosca Cora SpA v Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. (“IT’S B”)
The General Court upheld the decision of EUIPO to reject the opposition filed by Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. The court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bosca Cora SpA’s “IT’S B” trademark and Sumol’s earlier figurative mark featuring a stylized “B!”. The court emphasized the visual and phonetic differences and the weak distinctiveness of the letter “B”.
Judgment on LA v European Commission (Case T-4/24)
The General Court dismissed the action brought by LA, a candidate in a general competition. The applicant challenged the decision of the selection board not to include his name on the reserve list. The Court found no violation of the principle of equal treatment, the obligation to state reasons, or the Staff Regulations.
Judgment on Taxolutions BV v Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (TAXMARC)
The General Court annulled the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision finding a likelihood of confusion between Taxolutions BV’s “TAXMARC” trademark and Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG’s earlier figurative mark “X TAXMAN”. The court found that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed the understanding of the term “taxman” in Bulgaria and Hungary.
Judgment on Alessandro Zardini v European Commission (Case T-9/24)
The General Court dismissed an action brought by Alessandro Zardini against the European Commission regarding a competition procedure. The applicant challenged the jury’s decision not to include his name on the reserve list. The court found no errors in the application of the Staff Regulations or violations of equal treatment and transparency principles.
Judgment on Telly s. r. o. and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. (ČASO) v European Commission (Cases T-362/21 and T-363/21)
The General Court dismissed actions brought by Telly s. r. o. and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. (ČASO) against the European Commission’s decision regarding State aid related to the extension of digital terrestrial television (DTT) frequency usage rights in the Czech Republic. The Court found that the applicants were not individually concerned by the Commission’s decision.
Judgment on BDSwiss AG v EUIPO
The General Court dismissed an action brought by BDSwiss AG against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the refusal to forward an international trademark application to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The court found that BDSwiss AG, a Swiss company, had not sufficiently demonstrated that its subsidiary in Cyprus constituted a “real and effective industrial or commercial establishment” within the EU.
Judgment on Visable v EUIPO (“Europages”)
The General Court partially annulled the decision of EUIPO that rejected the trademark application of Visable for the word “Europages” based on lacking distinctive character. The court found that for some services in Classes 35, 38, and 42, the trademark was descriptive. However, for other services, EUIPO had not proven a direct and concrete link between the services and the trademark.
Judgment on Matina Stevi and The New York Times Company v European Commission
The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision to deny access to text messages between the President of the European Commission and the CEO of Pfizer. The court emphasizes on the principle of good administration and transparency. The Court found that the Commission failed to provide plausible explanations for not being able to locate the requested text messages.
Judgment on Smart Kid S.A. v European Commission (Case T-227/24)
The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision to refuse access to documents requested by Smart Kid S.A., finding that the Commission incorrectly applied the exception for the protection of commercial interests to justify the refusal of access to the requested documents. The court clarified that the exception to public access to documents must be interpreted and applied strictly, and that the institution must provide specific explanations as to how access to the document could undermine the protected interest.
Judgment on Techtex SRL v EUIPO (“Dr.Albert”)
The General Court dismissed Techtex SRL’s action, upholding the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO, which declared the EU trade mark “Dr.Albert” invalid based on bad faith. The core issue revolved around whether Techtex SRL acted in bad faith when it filed the application for the “Dr.Albert” trade mark, particularly in relation to the rights and reputation of Ms. Adina Alberts, a well-known plastic surgeon in Romania.
Judgment on LD v. European Commission (Case T-1184/23)
The General Court dismissed a complaint by LD against the decision of the jury in a general competition not to include her name on the reserve list. The court found no illegality in the competition notice, no violation of the principle of equal treatment, and no breach of the obligation to state reasons for the decision.
Notice regarding the closure of a state aid case involving Iceland and Sorpa bs.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) closed a state aid case involving Iceland and the waste management company Sorpa bs. after Iceland agreed to abolish an illegal income tax exemption.
Approval decision regarding the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028.
The Standing Committee of the EFTA States formally approved the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/882 of 14 May 2025 amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378 as regards the recognition of certain control bodies in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council as competent to carry out controls and issue organic certificates in third countries for the purpose of imports of organic products into the Union
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/882 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, updating the list of control bodies authorized to conduct inspections and issue organic certificates in third countries for the purpose of importing organic products into the EU. The regulation recognizes additional control bodies, extends the scope of recognition for existing ones, and removes one control body that voluntarily relinquished its recognition. These changes ensure that the control bodies meet the necessary criteria for overseeing organic production in third countries, thereby facilitating the import of organic products into the Union.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the reasons for the amendment, followed by two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378 is amended according to the Annex of this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, including replacing entries for several control bodies, deleting one entry, and inserting new entries for newly recognized control bodies.
The main provisions of the act include:
* Recognition of ‘Bio Latina Certificadora’, ‘Primus Auditing Operations Mexico’ and ‘PT BIOCert Indonesia’ as control bodies for specific product categories in certain third countries.
* Extension of recognition scope for ‘ACO Certification Limited’, ‘ACT Organic Company Limited’, ‘CCPB Srl’, ‘Ecocert SAS’, ‘Mayacert S.A.’ and ‘OneCert International Private Limited’ to include additional product categories and third countries.
* Removal of ‘Balkan Biocert Macedonia DOOEL Skopje’ from the list of recognized control bodies.
* Updates to the product categories and third countries for which ‘Control Union Certifications B.V.’, ‘Ecocert SAS’, ‘Japan Organic and Natural Foods Association’ and ‘Organic Crop Improvement Association International Inc’ are recognized, particularly concerning Japan.
The most important provisions for users are the updated lists of recognized control bodies and their respective scopes (countries and product categories). Businesses involved in importing organic products into the EU need to ensure that their control body is listed in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378 and that the scope of recognition covers the specific product and country of origin.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/883 of 14 May 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 as regards the recognition of certain third countries and control authorities and control bodies for the purpose of importing organic products into the Union
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/883 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 regarding the recognition of certain third countries and control authorities/bodies for importing organic products into the Union. The regulation updates the list of third countries whose organic production and control measures are considered equivalent to EU standards, making specific changes to the information concerning Australia, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States. It also removes Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 and integrates the product categories into Annex I for clarity.
The regulation consists of two articles and one annex. Article 1 outlines the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325, replacing Annex I with an updated list of recognised third countries and deleting Annex II. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides an updated “List of Recognised Third Countries” with specific details for each country, including product categories, origin criteria, production standards, competent authorities, and control bodies. Compared to the previous version, this regulation includes changes to the recognition status and details of control bodies in several third countries, and expands the scope of recognition for Japan to include live animals, unprocessed animal products, and all processed agricultural products for use as food.
The main provisions of this act that may be the most important for its use are the updated lists of recognised third countries and their respective control bodies, as well as the extended scope of recognition for Japan. These updates directly impact which organic products from these countries can be imported into the EU, and under what conditions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/902 of 12 May 2025 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special disease control measures for African swine fever
Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/902:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which outlines special disease control measures for African Swine Fever (ASF). The amendment involves updating the lists of restricted zones (Zones I, II, and III) within the European Union due to recent ASF outbreaks. These changes are necessary to manage and prevent the further spread of the disease based on the evolving epidemiological situation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Article 1:** This article is the core of the regulation. It directly replaces Annex I of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 with a new, updated annex. The new annex contains lists of specific geographic areas within Member States, categorized as restricted zones I, II, and III.
* **Article 2:** Specifies that the regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This ensures the immediate implementation of the updated zoning measures.
The annex lists specific regions within Member States, designating them as Restricted Zones I, II, or III. These zones reflect varying levels of risk associated with ASF outbreaks. The listed Member States include Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Czechia, Greece and Croatia.
Compared to previous versions, this regulation modifies the boundaries and classifications of restricted zones in Italy and Slovakia to reflect new outbreaks in wild and kept porcine animals.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Geographic Scope:** The most critical aspect is the detailed listing of specific municipalities, districts, or parts thereof within each Member State that fall into the restricted zones. Anyone involved in the movement of live pigs or pork products needs to consult the updated Annex I to determine if their area of operation is affected.
* **Zoning Implications:** The categorization of an area into Zone I, II, or III dictates the specific disease control measures that apply. These measures can include restrictions on movement, enhanced surveillance, and mandatory testing.
* **Dynamic Nature:** The regulation acknowledges that the ASF situation is dynamic. This implies that the restricted zones are subject to change as the epidemiological situation evolves, so it’s important to stay updated on the latest regulations.
* **Territorial Continuity:** The regulation highlights the importance of ensuring territorial continuity when defining restricted zones. This means that the zones should be demarcated in a way that avoids creating isolated pockets and facilitates effective disease control.
* **Legal Basis:** The regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2016/429, the “Animal Health Law,” which provides the framework for preventing and controlling animal diseases within the EU.
****
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/900 of 12 May 2025 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/900 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, focusing on the lists of third countries, territories, or zones authorized for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. The regulation responds to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Canada and the United States, while also addressing the animal health situation in the United Kingdom. It temporarily suspends and reauthorizes certain zones based on the latest epidemiological information and corrective measures taken by these countries.
The regulation is structured into two main articles and an annex divided into two parts. Article 1 details the amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, updating the zones from which poultry and related products can be imported into the EU, based on the HPAI situation. Article 2 corrects an error in Part 2 of Annex V of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, specifically addressing inaccuracies in the descriptions of zones US-2.967 and US-2.997. The annex provides specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV, including replacing and adding rows for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reflecting changes in their HPAI status. It also includes corrections to the geographical descriptions of specific zones within the United States.
The most important provisions for users are the updated lists of authorized zones for the import of poultry and related products into the EU. These lists determine which regions are currently approved for trade, reflecting the latest HPAI outbreaks and the effectiveness of control measures. Additionally, the correction of the geographical descriptions for the US zones is crucial for ensuring accurate implementation of the regulation and avoiding trade disruptions.
Council Regulation (EU) 2025/903 of 13 May 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
This Council Regulation (EU) 2025/903 amends Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which concerns restrictive measures against actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The amendment introduces a new criterion for listing individuals or entities involved in transferring ownership, control, or economic benefits from the business interests of leading Russian businesspersons already under EU sanctions. It also clarifies the burden of proof required to maintain leading businesspersons on the sanctions list, even if they claim to have transferred their business interests.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 amends Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 by adding a new criterion (m) to paragraph 1, which allows for the listing of individuals or entities that have participated in or enabled transfers of ownership, control, or economic benefit of the business interests of leading businesspersons who are subject to Union restrictive measures. It also inserts a new paragraph 1b, which states that leading businesspersons operating in Russia who claim to have transferred ownership, control, or economic benefit of their business interests on or after 24 February 2022 shall continue to be considered as leading businesspersons and maintained in the list unless sufficient, recent and reliable information demonstrates that they no longer meet the original listing criteria. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The most important provision is the new listing criterion (Article 1(1)), which targets those who facilitate the transfer of assets from sanctioned individuals, aiming to prevent the circumvention of existing sanctions. Additionally, the clarification on the burden of proof (Article 1(2)) ensures that sanctioned businesspersons cannot easily evade sanctions by claiming to have transferred their assets without providing sufficient evidence. **** This has direct implications for individuals and entities dealing with Russian businesspersons subject to sanctions related to actions undermining Ukraine.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Biogena GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark BIOGENA MOMENTS – Earlier national word mark MOMENT – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-418/24.
This judgment concerns a dispute between Biogena GmbH & Co. KG and Aziende Chimiche Riunite Angelini Francesco SpA (ACRAF SpA) regarding the registration of the EU trade mark “BIOGENA MOMENTS.” ACRAF SpA opposed the registration based on its earlier Italian word mark “MOMENT,” arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion. The EUIPO Board of Appeal sided with ACRAF SpA, leading Biogena to appeal to the General Court.
The General Court dismissed Biogena’s action, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision that a likelihood of confusion exists between the marks. The court found that the goods in question were identical, the earlier mark had an average degree of distinctiveness, and the signs were visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to an average degree. The court emphasized that the inclusion of the earlier mark “MOMENT” within the applied-for mark “BIOGENA MOMENTS” could lead consumers to believe the goods originate from the same or economically linked undertakings.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the international registration of “BIOGENA MOMENTS,” the opposition filed by ACRAF SpA, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It then details the forms of order sought by Biogena, EUIPO, and ACRAF SpA. The court then addresses the jurisdiction of the General Court and the admissibility of the action before delving into the single plea in law, which alleges misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. This plea is broken down into four parts: comparison of goods, comparison of marks, the distinctive character of the earlier mark, and the likelihood of confusion. Each part is analyzed in detail, with the court ultimately rejecting all of Biogena’s arguments and dismissing the action. Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Karneolis LTD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark KinkySwipe – Earlier national word mark SWIPE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-332/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court dismissed an action brought by Karneolis LTD against a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) concerning the trade mark “KinkySwipe”. The EUIPO had previously rejected Karneolis LTD’s application for the “KinkySwipe” mark due to a likelihood of confusion with an earlier Italian trade mark, “SWIPE,” owned by Match Group LLC. The General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision, finding no errors in the assessment of similarity between the services and signs, and confirming the likelihood of confusion.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It begins with the background of the dispute, detailing the application for the EU trade mark KinkySwipe, the opposition filed by Match Group LLC based on their earlier Italian word mark SWIPE, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
2. It outlines the forms of order sought by the applicant (Karneolis LTD), EUIPO, and the intervener (Match Group LLC).
3. It addresses the jurisdiction of the General Court, clarifying that it cannot issue directions to EUIPO regarding the registration of the mark.
4. The core of the judgment assesses the substance of the applicant’s plea, which alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the likelihood of confusion between the marks. This involves:
* Defining the relevant public and its level of attention.
* Comparing the services in question, finding them to be either identical or similar to an average degree.
* Comparing the signs at issue, analyzing their distinctive and dominant elements, visual and phonetic similarities, and conceptual similarity.
* Assessing the distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
* Conducting a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, ultimately agreeing with the Board of Appeal that such a likelihood exists.
5. Finally, it addresses the issue of costs, ordering Karneolis LTD to pay the costs incurred by Match Group LLC, while EUIPO bears its own costs.
The main provisions of the act that are most important for its use are:
* **Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001**: This article is the core legal basis for the decision, as it prohibits the registration of a trade mark if it is likely to cause confusion with an earlier trade mark due to the similarity of the marks and the goods or services they cover.
* The judgment provides a detailed analysis of how the likelihood of confusion is assessed, including the factors considered when comparing services and signs, determining the relevant public, and evaluating the distinctiveness of marks.
* The judgment reinforces the principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be global, taking into account all relevant factors and the overall impression created by the marks.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark It’s B – Earlier national figurative mark B! – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-283/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark “It’s B” applied for by Bosca Cora SpA and the earlier national figurative mark “B!” owned by Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had rejected the opposition to the registration of “It’s B”.
The case revolves around an opposition filed by Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. against the registration of the EU trade mark “It’s B” by Bosca Cora SpA for goods in Classes 32 (non-alcoholic beverages) and 33 (alcoholic beverages). The opposition was based on the earlier Portuguese figurative mark “B!” for goods in Classes 30 (coffee, tea) and 32 (beverages). The Opposition Division initially upheld the opposition, finding a likelihood of confusion. However, the Board of Appeal overturned this decision, leading to the appeal before the General Court. The General Court dismissed the action and upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, confirming that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks.
The court’s judgment focuses on the comparison of the signs, assessing the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity, as well as the distinctiveness of the elements. The court found that the relevant public would perceive significant differences between the marks, particularly in their overall appearance and length. The court emphasized that the letter “b,” common to both marks, has a weak distinctive character. The court concluded that the visual and phonetic differences outweighed the similarities, leading to no likelihood of confusion, even for identical goods.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark IT’S B – Earlier national figurative mark B! – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-282/24.
This judgment by the General Court concerns a dispute over an EU trade mark application. Bosca Cora SpA applied to register the word mark “IT’S B” for goods in Classes 32 and 33, namely soft drinks, wine and other alcoholic beverages. Sumol + Compal Marcas S.A. opposed this application based on its earlier Portuguese figurative mark featuring a stylized “B!”. The core issue was whether the similarity between the marks would likely cause confusion among consumers.
The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, which had rejected the opposition. The court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks, even though the goods in question were in part identical. The court considered the visual, phonetic, and conceptual aspects of the marks, concluding that the differences outweighed the similarities.
The court emphasized that the relevant public (Portuguese consumers) would perceive the differences in the marks, particularly considering the weak distinctiveness of the letter “B” itself. The court noted that the visual and phonetic differences were significant enough to prevent confusion, even with identical goods. The court also stated that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment of the distinctive and dominant elements of the signs at issue.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 14 mai 2025.#LA contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Recrutement – Concours général EPSO/AD/371/19 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Égalité de traitement – Confiance légitime – Obligation de motivation.#Affaire T-4/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) in Case T-4/24 between LA (the applicant) and the European Commission (the defendant). The case concerns a decision by the selection board in a general competition EPSO/AD/371/19 not to include the applicant on the reserve list. The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision, arguing violations of the principle of equal treatment, the obligation to state reasons, and certain provisions of the Staff Regulations. The Court dismisses the action, finding no merit in the applicant’s claims.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the procedural history, including the applicant’s participation in the competition, the initial rejection, a previous judgment of the Court annulling the initial decision, the subsequent re-evaluation, and the final decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list.
2. **Conclusions of the Parties:** This section summarizes the applicant’s requests to the Court (annulment of the decisions and costs) and the Commission’s counter-arguments (rejection of the action and costs).
3. **Law:** This section contains the Court’s legal analysis and reasoning, divided into:
* **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The Court clarifies that the action concerns only the decision on the request for review, as it replaced the initial decision.
* **Substance:** The Court examines the three pleas raised by the applicant:
* Violation of the principle of equal treatment and illegality of the competition notice.
* Violation of the obligation to state reasons, the right to equality of the parties in the procedure, and the principle of good administration.
* Violation of Article 5, paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
4. **Costs:** The Court orders each party to bear its own costs.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* **Principle of Equal Treatment:** The Court reiterates that comparable situations should not be treated differently unless objectively justified. It emphasizes that the selection board must ensure that all candidates in a competition undergo the same tests under the same conditions.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The Court balances the obligation to state reasons with the need to maintain the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings. It confirms that providing the candidate with the grid of answers is sufficient to fulfill the obligation to state reasons.
* **Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations:** The Court clarifies that the provision recommending that the reserve list contain at least twice as many candidates as the number of posts to be filled is merely a recommendation and its violation does not justify the annulment of the decision.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Taxolutions BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark TAXMARC – Earlier EU figurative mark X TAXMAN – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Relevant public – Conceptual similarity.Case T-1154/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute between Taxolutions BV and Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, concerning the registration of the word mark TAXMARC. The court annuls the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had found a likelihood of confusion between TAXMARC and an earlier figurative mark X TAXMAN.
The case revolves around Taxolutions’ application to register TAXMARC as an EU trade mark and an opposition filed by Haufe-Lexware, based on their earlier figurative mark X TAXMAN. The EUIPO’s Opposition Division initially upheld the opposition for certain goods and services, a decision partially upheld by the Board of Appeal. Taxolutions then appealed to the General Court, arguing that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed the likelihood of confusion.
The General Court’s judgment focuses on whether the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant public’s understanding of the term “taxman,” particularly in Bulgaria and Hungary. The court finds that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assumed that the relevant public in those countries would not understand the term “tax” or “taxman” due to insufficient knowledge of English. The court argues that because the goods and services at issue relate to fields like finance, economics, and IT, it can be assumed that the relevant public would understand the term “tax.” Because of this error, the court annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision, stating that it had an impact on the assessment of similarity between the marks and the overall likelihood of confusion. The court orders EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and Haufe-Lexware to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Taxolutions in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 14 mai 2025.#Alessandro Zardini contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Recrutement – Concours général EPSO/AD/371/19 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Régime linguistique – Exception d’illégalité – Égalité de traitement – Obligation de motivation – Confiance légitime.#Affaire T-9/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of the European Union, issued on May 14, 2025, in the case T-9/24, Alessandro Zardini v. European Commission.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns a dispute over a general competition (EPSO/AD/371/19) for the recruitment of administrators. The applicant, Alessandro Zardini, challenged the decision of the jury not to include his name on the reserve list. The General Court dismissed Zardini’s action, finding no grounds to annul the Commission’s decision. The court addressed several arguments raised by Zardini, including alleged illegality of the competition notice, violations of the principle of equal treatment, and insufficient reasoning for the decision.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the facts of the case, including Zardini’s application to the competition, the selection process, and the decisions he is challenging.
2. **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments presented by Zardini and the Commission.
3. **Legal Analysis:** The Court systematically addresses each of Zardini’s arguments, dividing them into several pleas. These include:
* The alleged illegality of the competition notice due to language requirements.
* Violations of the principle of equal treatment during the competition.
* Manifest errors in the assessment of the tests.
* Insufficient reasoning in the decision not to include Zardini on the reserve list.
* Violation of the principle of good administration.
4. **Decision:** The Court rejects all of Zardini’s pleas and dismisses the action.
5. **Costs:** The Court orders each party to bear its own costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing laws. It interprets and applies existing EU law, particularly the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the context of a specific competition procedure. The court’s analysis focuses on the legality of the competition notice, the fairness of the selection process, and the adequacy of the reasoning provided to the applicant.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are the court’s interpretations of:
* **The principle of equal treatment in competition procedures:** The court emphasizes that while competitions inherently involve some risk of unequal treatment, the jury must take steps to minimize this risk.
* **The obligation to provide reasons for decisions:** The court clarifies that the level of detail required in the reasoning depends on the context and must be balanced against the need to protect the confidentiality of the jury’s deliberations.
* **The possibility to invoke the illegality of a competition notice:** The court confirms that candidates can challenge the legality of a competition notice in their appeal against the decision, but only if there is a close link between the contested decision and the elements of the notice that are challenged.
This judgment provides valuable guidance on the legal standards applicable to EU recruitment competitions and the rights of candidates in these procedures.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Telly s. r. o. v European Commission.Actions for annulment – State aid – Digital terrestrial television (DTT) – Extension by the Czech Republic of frequency usage rights allocated to certain operators for the broadcasting of DTT – Decision finding no State aid – Provider of satellite and internet television services – Trade association – Locus standi – No individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility.Case T-362/21.
This is the Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 May 2025 in Joined Cases T-362/21 and T-363/21, concerning actions for annulment brought by Telly s. r. o. and Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. (ČASO) against the European Commission’s decision regarding State aid related to the extension of digital terrestrial television (DTT) frequency usage rights in the Czech Republic. The General Court dismissed the actions as inadmissible, finding that the applicants were not individually concerned by the Commission’s decision. The court held that the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate a substantial adverse effect on their market position due to the extension of the DTT licenses.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the context of the case, including the Commission’s decision, the extension of DTT licenses in the Czech Republic, and the relevant EU legislation concerning frequency bands.
2. **Forms of Order Sought:** This part summarizes the applicants’ requests to annul the Commission’s decision and the Commission’s counter-arguments, supported by the Czech Republic, to dismiss the actions.
3. **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, detailing the court’s legal reasoning. It covers:
* Admissibility of the Czech Republic’s applications to intervene.
* Requests for the omission of certain data vis-à-vis the public.
* Admissibility of the actions, focusing on whether the applicants meet the criteria for bringing an action under Article 263 TFEU. This includes an analysis of ČASO’s specific situation as a trade association and whether the applicants are individually concerned by the Commission’s decision.
4. **Costs:** This section determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act that are important for its use are those concerning the admissibility of actions for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, particularly the criteria for establishing individual concern in State aid cases. The court emphasizes that to be individually concerned, the applicant must demonstrate that the contested decision affects them due to specific attributes or circumstances that differentiate them from all other persons. In this case, the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of a substantial adverse effect on their market position resulting from the extension of the DTT licenses.
Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 14 mai 2025.#BDSwiss AG contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale BDSwiss – Refus de transmission de la demande internationale au bureau international de l’OMPI – Article 184, paragraphe 5, sous f), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Notion d’“établissement industriel ou commercial effectif et sérieux” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous ii), du protocole relatif à l’arrangement de Madrid.#Affaire T-401/24.
This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the refusal to forward an international trademark application to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The court dismisses the action brought by BDSwiss AG against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
The judgment concerns the interpretation and application of Article 184(5)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 2(1)(ii) of the Madrid Protocol, which relate to the conditions under which an EU trademark applicant can extend their trademark protection internationally via the Madrid system. The court examines whether BDSwiss AG, a Swiss company, has sufficiently demonstrated that its subsidiary in Cyprus constitutes a “real and effective industrial or commercial establishment” within the EU, a requirement for forwarding the international application.
The court finds that the evidence provided by BDSwiss AG, consisting of declarations from its director, is insufficient to prove the existence of a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment. The court emphasizes that declarations from individuals closely related to the applicant require corroboration by other evidence, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the court upholds the EUIPO’s decision to refuse the transmission of the international application to WIPO.
Urteil des Gerichts (Erste Kammer) vom 14. Mai 2025.#Visable gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung der Unionswortmarke Europages – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Fehlende Unterscheidungskraft – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-323/24.
This document is a judgment by the European Union’s General Court regarding the trademark application for the word “Europages.” The court partially annuls the decision of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office), which had rejected the trademark application based on the grounds that it lacked distinctive character.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the initial trademark application by Visable for the word “Europages” and the services it intended to cover under Classes 35, 38, and 42 of the Nice Agreement (related to advertising, telecommunications, and data processing). It also details the EUIPO’s initial rejection and the subsequent appeal.
2. **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes Visable’s arguments for annulling the EUIPO’s decision and the EUIPO’s counter-arguments for upholding its decision.
3. **Legal Analysis:** The Court assesses whether the trademark “Europages” is devoid of distinctive character, as per Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. It examines the meaning of the term, its connection to the services in question, and whether it would allow consumers to distinguish Visable’s services from those of other companies. The Court breaks down its analysis into three main grievances raised by Visable:
* The meaning of the sign “Europages”.
* The lack of a sufficiently direct and concrete link between the services and the trademark.
* The failure to apply the jurisprudence on ambiguous signs by analogy.
4. **Decision:** The Court partially annuls the EUIPO’s decision. It finds that for some of the services listed in Classes 35, 38, and 42, the term “Europages” does lack distinctive character and would be perceived as merely descriptive. However, for other services, the EUIPO failed to demonstrate a sufficiently direct and concrete link between the term and the services to justify the rejection.
5. **Costs:** The Court orders each party to bear its own costs due to the partial success of both parties.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* The Court’s assessment of the term “Europages” and its components (“euro” and “pages”) and their potential meanings to the relevant public.
* The application of the principle that a trademark must have a sufficiently direct and concrete link to the goods or services it represents to be considered descriptive and lacking distinctive character.
* The specific services for which the Court found the term “Europages” to be descriptive and those for which it found the EUIPO’s reasoning insufficient.
Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Matina Stevi and The New York Times Company v European Commission.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the text messages exchanged between the President of the Commission and the chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer – Refusal to grant access – Presumption of veracity attached to the declaration of non-possession of documents – Lack of plausible explanations making it possible to determine the reasons for the non-existence or non-possession – Retention of documents – Principle of good administration.Case T-36/23.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding access to documents, specifically concerning text messages between the President of the European Commission and the CEO of Pfizer. The case was brought by a journalist, Matina Stevi, and The New York Times Company against the European Commission. The court annuls the Commission’s decision to deny access to these text messages.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial request for access to documents, the Commission’s refusal, and the subsequent confirmatory applications. It then addresses the admissibility of the action and the evidence submitted. The core of the judgment examines the applicants’ claims, focusing on whether the Commission was justified in refusing access to the documents. The court assesses whether the Commission adequately searched for the documents and provided sufficient reasons for their non-existence or non-possession. Finally, the court rules on the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provision of the act is the court’s emphasis on the principle of good administration and transparency. The court found that the Commission failed to provide plausible explanations for not being able to locate the requested text messages. The court emphasizes that institutions must diligently search for documents and provide credible reasons if they cannot be found, especially when there is evidence suggesting the documents existed. This ruling reinforces the public’s right to access documents held by EU institutions and sets a high standard for how institutions must handle such requests.
Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 14 mai 2025.#Smart Kid S.A. contre Commission européenne.#Accès aux documents – Règlement (CE) no 1049/2001 – Documents relatifs à des échanges entre la Commission et un concurrent direct du requérant – Refus d’accès – Exception relative à la protection des intérêts commerciaux – Obligation de motivation.#Affaire T-227/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of the European Union in the case T-227/24, Smart Kid S.A. v European Commission. The judgment concerns the refusal by the European Commission to grant access to documents requested by Smart Kid S.A. under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission incorrectly applied the exception for the protection of commercial interests to justify the refusal of access to the requested documents.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
– It begins with an introduction outlining the request for annulment of the Commission’s decision.
– It describes the background of the dispute, including Smart Kid S.A.’s business, its product “Smart Kid Belt,” and its requests for access to documents related to exchanges between the Commission and a competitor.
– It presents the arguments of the parties, with Smart Kid S.A. seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision and the Commission defending its refusal to grant access.
– It then proceeds to the legal analysis, examining two pleas raised by Smart Kid S.A.: (1) violation of Article 15(3) TFEU and Regulation No 1049/2001, and (2) insufficient reasoning in the Commission’s decision.
– The Court rejects the second plea regarding insufficient reasoning but upholds the first plea, finding that the Commission incorrectly applied the exception for the protection of commercial interests under Regulation No 1049/2001.
– Finally, the Court rules on the allocation of costs, ordering the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act are:
– The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision to refuse access to documents, specifically documents 1, 2, and 2.1, based on the exception for the protection of commercial interests.
– The Court finds that the Commission did not adequately demonstrate how the disclosure of these documents would specifically and effectively harm the commercial interests of the parties involved.
– The Court emphasizes that the exception to public access to documents must be interpreted and applied strictly.
The most important provisions for its use are the court’s findings regarding the application of the exception for the protection of commercial interests under Regulation No 1049/2001. The court clarifies that the institution refusing access must provide specific explanations as to how access to the document could concretely and effectively undermine the protected interest. The judgment also highlights that the mere fact that a document relates to commercial activities is not sufficient to justify a refusal of access; the institution must demonstrate a reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical risk of harm to commercial interests.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2025.Techtex SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Dr.Albert – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-327/24.
This judgment concerns an action brought by Techtex SRL against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), challenging the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO, which declared the EU trade mark “Dr.Albert” invalid based on bad faith. The core issue revolves around whether Techtex SRL acted in bad faith when it filed the application for the “Dr.Albert” trade mark, particularly in relation to the rights and reputation of Ms. Adina Alberts, a well-known plastic surgeon in Romania. The General Court ultimately dismissed Techtex SRL’s action, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **I. Background to the dispute:** This section outlines the timeline of events, starting with Ms. Adina Alberts’ application for a declaration of invalidity of the “Dr.Albert” EU trade mark, the goods covered by the mark (Classes 10 and 20), the ground for invalidity (Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – bad faith), the Cancellation Division’s initial rejection of the application, and the Board of Appeal’s subsequent decision to uphold the appeal.
* **II. Forms of order sought:** This section details the requests made by the applicant (Techtex SRL), EUIPO, and the intervener (Ms. Adina Alberts) regarding the outcome of the case.
* **III. Law:** This is the main body of the judgment, where the General Court presents its legal reasoning. It covers the interpretation of the applicant’s claims, the admissibility of evidence presented for the first time before the Court, and the substance of the case, including the pleas of law raised by the applicant.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable in this case, as the judgment refers to the application of existing regulations and case law to a specific dispute.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001:** This article is the legal basis for the invalidity claim, concerning bad faith in filing a trade mark application. The judgment provides an in-depth analysis of the concept of “bad faith” and the factors to be considered when assessing it.
* **The General Court’s analysis of “bad faith”:** The judgment clarifies the criteria for determining bad faith, including the applicant’s knowledge of a third party’s use of a similar sign, the intention to prevent the third party from using the sign, and the intention to take unfair advantage of the reputation of an earlier trade mark or name.
* **Admissibility of evidence:** The judgment emphasizes that the legality of EUIPO’s decisions is assessed based on the facts and law existing at the time the decision was adopted, and new evidence presented for the first time before the General Court may be deemed inadmissible.
* **Burden of proof:** The judgment reiterates that the burden of proof lies with the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to demonstrate that the trade mark proprietor acted in bad faith. However, if EUIPO finds objective circumstances that rebut the presumption of good faith, the proprietor must provide plausible explanations for the application.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 14 mai 2025.#LD contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Recrutement – Concours général EPSO/AD/371/19 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Régime linguistique – Exception d’illégalité – Égalité de traitement – Obligation de motivation – Confiance légitime.#Affaire T-1184/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of the European Union from May 14, 2025, in Case T-1184/23, LD v. European Commission. The case concerns a complaint by LD, a candidate in a general competition for the recruitment of administrators, against the decision of the jury not to include her name on the reserve list. The applicant argues that the competition notice was illegal, violated the principle of equal treatment, and breached the obligation to state reasons.
The structure of the judgment involves an examination of several pleas raised by the applicant against the decision of the competition jury. The court dismisses all the pleas, finding no grounds to annul the jury’s decision. The judgment addresses issues such as the legality of the competition notice, equal treatment of candidates, manifest errors in assessment, and the obligation to provide adequate reasons for the decision.
Several provisions are important for understanding the judgment. First, the court examines the applicant’s claim that the requirement to take the evaluation center tests in a second language (other than the candidate’s native language) as stated in the competition notice was illegal. The court finds that since the applicant could have chosen her native language as the second language, this requirement did not adversely affect her. Second, the court addresses the applicant’s claim of unequal treatment during the tests, including the difficulty level of the tests and the composition of the jury. The court finds no evidence to support these claims. Finally, the court considers the applicant’s argument that the decision not to include her on the reserve list was insufficiently motivated. The court finds that the communication of the marks obtained in the tests, along with the jury’s comments, provided sufficient justification for the decision.
State aid – Decision to close an existing aid case as a result of acceptance of appropriate measures by an EFTA State
This is a notice regarding the closure of a state aid case involving Iceland, specifically concerning the waste management company Sorpa bs. The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) investigated an income tax exemption granted to Sorpa bs. under the Icelandic Income Tax Act No. 90/2003, and determined it to be a form of illegal state aid. To resolve the issue, ESA proposed appropriate measures to abolish the tax exemption, which the Icelandic authorities accepted. With the acceptance of these measures, ESA has formally closed the case.
The notice provides the date of the decision (January 29, 2025), the case number (81738), the decision number (005/25/COL), and identifies Iceland as the EFTA State involved. It specifies that the aid was in the form of an income tax exemption for Sorpa bs. based on the Icelandic Income Tax Act No. 90/2003. The notice concludes by providing a link to the authentic text of the decision on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website.
The key point of this notice is the confirmation that Iceland has agreed to eliminate the income tax exemption for Sorpa bs., which ESA considered to be illegal state aid. This ensures fair competition within the European Economic Area (EEA) by removing a potential advantage that Sorpa bs. had over other companies.
Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2025/SC of 27 January 2025 on the approval of the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028 [2025/907]
This is an approval decision by the Standing Committee of the EFTA States regarding the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028. The decision formally approves the regulation, ensuring its validity and implementation within the framework of the EEA Agreement. It also mandates the publication of the decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union, making it accessible to the public. The decision enters into force on the day of its adoption.
The structure of the decision is very simple. It consists of a preamble that cites the legal basis for the decision, including the EEA Agreement and Protocol 38d on the EEA Financial Mechanism (2021-2028), as well as references to other relevant decisions and regulations. The operative part of the decision contains three articles: Article 1 approves the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028, Article 2 concerns the publication of the decision, and Article 3 specifies the entry into force of the decision. There are no changes compared to previous versions as this is a decision approving a new regulation for the period 2021-2028.
The most important provision is Article 1, which formally approves the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028. This approval is essential for the regulation to take effect and for the EEA Financial Mechanism to be implemented.
