Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/888 – PGI Registration for ‘Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras’
This regulation formally grants Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status to ‘Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras’, a pastry from Portugal. With no objections raised during the standard review period, this status provides legal protection against misuse of the name for products not adhering to its specific characteristics and origin.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/916 – Fishing Effort Deduction for Italy
This regulation penalizes Italy for exceeding its 2024 fishing limits for European hake in certain Mediterranean areas. Specifically, Italy faces a reduction of 18 fishing days in 2025 for bottom trawlers targeting hake in specified geographical subareas, detailed in the annex, as a deterrent against future overfishing and ensure sustainability.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/897 – Approved Ports for Weighing Fish Catches
This regulation approves a list of ports in Denmark (Skagen, Thyborøn, Hirtshals, Grenå, Hvide Sande and Hanstholm) and Latvia (Ventspils) as compliant with conditions for accurate fish weighing. These ports are now authorized to handle unsorted landings from specific fisheries with a more flexible margin of tolerance for catch estimates, reducing penalties for minor discrepancies. Vessels using these ports can therefore reduce penalties, but are required to meet certain additional condidtions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/890 – Registration of Glass Fibre Imports
This regulation mandates the registration of imports of continuous filament glass fibre products from Bahrain, Egypt, and Thailand. This is a precautionary measure to potentially apply anti-dumping duties retroactively if an ongoing investigation confirms these imports are being dumped on the EU market. Importers should be aware that this registration could lead to retroactive anti-dumping duties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/883 – Amendments to Organic Import Recognition
This regulation updates the recognized third countries and control bodies authorized to certify organic products for import into the EU. Key changes include updates to country-specific specifications, notably changes related to Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. Importers must ensure that their organic products are certified by a recognized control body and align with the updated requirements.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/882 – Recognition of Organic Control Bodies
This regulation amends the list of control bodies recognized for certifying organic products imported into the EU. It adds ‘Bio Latina Certificadora’, ‘Primus Auditing Operations Mexico’ and ‘PT BIOCert Indonesia’ to the list of recognized control bodies, extends the scope of recognition for several existing control bodies and removes ‘Balkan Biocert Macedonia DOOEL Skopje’ from the list. Businesses importing organic products need to verify that their certifier is currently recognized and covers the product categories and origin countries in question.
CJEU Judgment – Advertising “Purchase on Invoice” as a Promotional Offer
The Court of Justice has clarified that advertising a payment method such as “buy now, pay later” is considered a promotional offer under the e-Commerce Directive. Online retailers must clearly present all conditions for such offers, including creditworthiness assessments, to ensure consumers are fully informed of what this entails.
CJEU Judgment – Admissibility of Action Against CO2 Emission Standards
The Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s dismissal of an action for annulment against Regulation 2023/851 (setting more ambitious targets for CO2 reduction for cars and light commercial vehicles). The Court reiterated that individuals must be individually concerned by an EU act to challenge it, meaning the act must affect them in a specific way that distinguishes them from all other persons. This reinforces the conditions under which individuals can challenge EU legislation directly.
CJEU Judgment – Equal Treatment in Pension Supplements
The Court of Justice ruled that national legislation granting pension supplements to women who have had children, while imposing additional conditions on men in similar situations, constitutes direct sex discrimination and is incompatible with EU law. This confirms the principle of equal treatment in social security matters.
CJEU Judgment – Sberbank Appeal on SRB Decision (Sberbank Europe AG)
The Court of Justice has upheld the General Court’s decision regarding the Single Resolution Board’s decision not to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Europe AG. The court found that the SRB’s decision did not directly affect Sberbank of Russia’s legal situation as a shareholder of Sberbank Europe AG. The court restates the conditions when a decision is challengeble by a person to whom the act isn´t directly addressed.
CJEU Judgment – Sberbank Appeal on SRB Decision (Sberbank d.d.)
The Court of Justice rejected Sberbank of Russia’s appeal against decisions related to the resolution of Sberbank d.d. (a Croatian subsidiary). The court found that as an indirect shareholder, Sberbank of Russia was not directly affected by the SRB’s decision or the Commission’s endorsement, thus clarifying the limits on challenging banking resolution decisions.
CJEU Judgment – Sberbank Appeal on SRB Decision (Sberbank banka d.d.)
The Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s dismissal of Sberbank’s action against decisions regarding the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d. (Sberbank Slovenia). The court confirmed that a parent company cannot directly challenge decisions related to a subsidiary’s resolution when the parent company’s ownership is indirect. This case clarifies the conditions under which a party can bring an action against EU decisions related to banking resolution.
CJEU Judgment – Prohibition on Placing Non-Compliant Tobacco Products on the Market
The Court of Justice clarified that the prohibition on placing non-compliant tobacco products on the market applies to all stages of the supply chain, including wholesalers supplying retailers, not just at the point of sale to consumers. This strengthens the enforcement of tobacco product regulations.
CJEU Judgment – Validity of Union Registry Regulation
The Court of Justice ruled that Articles 40 and 70 of Regulation No. 389/2013, concerning the finality of transactions in the Union Registry for greenhouse gas emission allowances, are valid. While these articles prevent the reversal of transactions, affected parties can pursue remedies under national law, such as damages. The decision upholds the validity of EU regulation.
CJEU Judgment – Customs Value Determination with Provisional Purchase Price
The Court of Justice clarified that the transaction value method (Article 70) should be used whenever possible, even with provisional prices. Importers should use the simplified customs declaration procedure and declare a provisional price initially, later submitting a supplementary declaration with the final price once determined. The customs authorities must adjust when final prices are submitted in a timely manner.
EFTA Surveillance Authority – Closure of State Aid Case (Sorpa bs.)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority closed its state aid case involving Iceland’s waste management company, Sorpa bs., after Iceland agreed to abolish an income tax exemption previously deemed illegal state aid. This ensures fair competition and compliance with state aid rules.
Standing Committee of the EFTA States – Approval of EEA Financial Mechanism Regulation
The Standing Committee of the EFTA States approved the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2021-2028. This approval is essential for the regulation to be legally binding and operational within the EEA.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/888 of 15 May 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/888 registers ‘Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This registration is based on an application from Portugal and follows the procedures outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for various products. The regulation confirms that no objections were received during the opposition period, paving the way for the inclusion of this product in the register.
The structure of the act is straightforward, containing a preamble that outlines the legal basis and justification for the regulation, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the geographical indication ‘Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras’ (PGI). Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1143.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants the ‘Pastel de feijão de Torres Vedras’ the status of a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. This provides legal protection against misuse or imitation of the name for products not conforming to the specified product specifications and produced in the defined geographical area.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/916 of 15 May 2025 operating a deduction from the fishing effort available to Italy in 2025 on account of overfishing in the previous year
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/916 addresses the issue of overfishing by Italy in 2024. It mandates a deduction from Italy’s fishing effort allocation for 2025 due to exceeding the allowed limits for bottom trawl vessels targeting European hake in specific Mediterranean subareas. This regulation ensures compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy and aims to maintain sustainable fishing practices.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the fishing effort allocated to Italy for 2025, as defined in Regulation (EU) 2025/219, must be reduced according to the details provided in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect seven days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides a table detailing the deduction from Italy’s fishing effort for overfishing of hake in GFCM geographical subareas 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. It specifies the fishing effort group code, stock group, vessel length and type, initial and adapted fishing effort for 2024, total fishing effort deployed in 2024, effort uptake percentage, overfishing amount, multiplying factor, and the resulting deduction to be applied to the 2025 fishing effort allocation.
The most important provision is the concrete deduction of 18 fishing days from Italy’s 2025 fishing effort for bottom trawl vessels targeting European hake in the specified Mediterranean subareas. This directly impacts the operational capacity of Italian fishing vessels in those areas and serves as a deterrent against future overfishing.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/897 of 15 May 2025 approving the listing of ports in accordance with Chapter II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1474
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/897 approves a list of ports that comply with specific conditions for accurate weighing of fish catches, as outlined in Chapter II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1474. This regulation is essential for allowing a derogation from the standard margin of tolerance in estimating catches for unsorted landings and transhipments from certain fisheries. The approved ports are located in Denmark and Latvia.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the Commission approves the ports listed in the annex, which comply with Chapter II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1474. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex lists the names and locations of the approved ports, specifying whether they are in the Union and the applicant Member State.
The most important provision of this act is the list of approved ports in the Annex. These ports (Skagen, Thyborøn, Hirtshals, Grenå, Hvide Sande and Hanstholm in Denmark, and Ventspils in Latvia) are now authorized to handle unsorted landings from small pelagic fisheries, industrial fisheries, and tropical tuna purse seine fisheries with a derogation from the standard margin of tolerance for catch estimates, provided that the conditions in Chapter IV of Regulation (EU) 2024/1474 are met. This means that fishing vessels landing or transhipping in these ports can benefit from a more flexible system for estimating their catches, reducing the risk of penalties for minor discrepancies.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/890 of 15 May 2025 making imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Bahrain, Egypt and Thailand subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/890 mandates the registration of imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating from Bahrain, Egypt, and Thailand. This action is a precautionary measure that allows the EU to potentially impose anti-dumping duties retroactively if an ongoing investigation determines that these imports are being dumped on the EU market. The regulation ensures that if the investigation confirms dumping practices, duties can be applied to imports made during the registration period.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration and two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of specific types of continuous filament glass fibre products, including chopped glass fibre strands, glass fibre rovings (excluding certain types), and mats made of glass fibre filaments, originating from Bahrain, Egypt, and Thailand. It also specifies the relevant CN and TARIC codes for these products. The registration is set to expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will take effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. There are no direct changes to previous versions, as this is an implementing regulation related to an ongoing anti-dumping investigation.
The most important provision is Article 1, which requires the registration of specific glass fibre products from Bahrain, Egypt, and Thailand. Businesses importing these products should be aware that this registration could lead to retroactive anti-dumping duties if the investigation confirms dumping. The regulation also highlights that any personal data collected during the registration process will be handled in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, ensuring data protection.
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, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325 regarding the recognition of third countries and their control authorities/bodies for importing organic products into the EU. The regulation updates the list of recognized third countries and their respective control bodies authorized to certify organic products for import into the Union.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 details the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2325, specifically replacing Annex I and deleting Annex II. Article 2 states the date of entry into force. The main change is the replacement of Annex I, which lists recognized third countries and their specifications, including product categories, origin rules, production standards, competent authorities, and control bodies. Annex II, which previously listed control authorities and bodies, is deleted. The new Annex I includes a description of product categories, which were previously referenced in Annex II.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the specific changes for each listed country. For example, Australia’s competent authority name change, India’s updates to recognized control bodies, Japan’s extended recognition to live animals and processed animal products, and the United States’ changes to its list of control bodies. Operators importing organic products need to be aware of these specific changes to ensure compliance with EU regulations.
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, focusing on the recognition of control bodies competent to perform controls and issue organic certificates in third countries for the purpose of importing organic products into the EU. The regulation updates the list of recognized control bodies based on their requests for recognition or changes in their scope of activities. It aims to ensure that 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 indicates the date of entry into force. The Annex provides specific amendments to the list of recognized control bodies, including additions, replacements, and deletions of entries. Compared to the previous version, this regulation adds ‘Bio Latina Certificadora’, ‘Primus Auditing Operations Mexico’ and ‘PT BIOCert Indonesia’ to the list of recognized control bodies, extends the scope of recognition for several existing control bodies like ‘ACO Certification Limited’, ‘ACT Organic Company Limited’, ‘CCPB Srl’, ‘Ecocert SAS’, ‘Mayacert S.A.’ and ‘OneCert International Private Limited’, and removes ‘Balkan Biocert Macedonia DOOEL Skopje’ from the list. Additionally, it adjusts the product categories and third countries for which certain control bodies are recognized, particularly in relation to Japan.
The most important provisions for users are the updated lists of recognized control bodies and their respective scopes (countries and product categories). Businesses importing organic products into the EU need to ensure that the control body certifying their products is listed in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, as amended by this regulation, and that the scope of recognition covers the specific product category and country of origin. This is crucial for compliance with EU organic import regulations.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg e.V. v bonprix Handelsgesellschaft mbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic commerce – Directive 2000/31/EC – Commercial communications – Article 6(c) – Concept of ‘promotional offers’ – Online advertising setting out a specific payment arrangement – Purchase on invoice involving a deferral of payment of the sales price – Information on the need for a prior assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness only during the online ordering process.Case C-100/24.
This document is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC), specifically Article 6(c) concerning “promotional offers.” The case revolves around a dispute in Germany between a consumer protection association and an online retailer, bonprix, about an advertising message promoting “convenient purchase on invoice.” The core issue is whether advertising a payment arrangement like “purchase on invoice” qualifies as a “promotional offer” under EU law, requiring clear and easily accessible information about the conditions attached to it.
The judgment clarifies the scope of “promotional offer” within the context of online advertising. It specifies that a “promotional offer” includes any commercial communication that provides the recipient with an objective and certain advantage that could influence their purchasing behavior. The Court emphasizes that the form and extent of the advantage are not crucial; it can be monetary, legal, or simply a matter of convenience. The judgment also addresses the relationship between Directive 2000/31 and other directives, such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU), clarifying that the transparency requirements of Directive 2000/31 are additional and take precedence in certain cases.
The most important provision of this act is that advertising a payment method such as “buy now, pay later” is a promotional offer and should be treated as such. This means that online retailers must clearly and unambiguously present all conditions for such offers, including the need for a creditworthiness assessment. This ensures consumers are fully informed and can assess their eligibility for the offer from the outset.
Arrêt de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 15 mai 2025.#Lorenz Kiene e.a. contre Parlement européen et Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Pourvoi – Environnement – Règlement (UE) 2023/851 – Normes de performance en matière d’émissions de dioxyde de carbone – Voitures particulières neuves – Prise en compte des émissions en dehors de l’utilisation du véhicule – Carburants synthétiques neutres en dioxyde de carbone – Recours en annulation – Condition selon laquelle le requérant doit être individuellement concerné par l’acte attaqué – Défaut – Système complet de voies de recours – Droit fondamental à une protection juridictionnelle effective.#Affaire C-487/24 P.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) regarding an appeal against a decision of the General Court. The case concerns the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by several companies and an individual against Regulation (EU) 2023/851, which amends Regulation (EU) 2019/631 concerning CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Introduction:** The judgment starts by identifying the parties involved and the decision being appealed (the General Court’s order).
2. **Background to the Dispute:** This section summarizes the facts of the case, including the legislative context of Regulation 2023/851 as part of the “Fit for 55” package, which aims to reduce emissions and achieve climate neutrality. It also describes the content of the contested provisions of Regulation 2023/851, which sets more ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles, including a 100% reduction target by 2035.
3. **Proceedings Before the General Court and the Order Under Appeal:** This part explains that the applicants sought annulment of Article 1(1) of Regulation 2023/851, but the General Court dismissed their action as inadmissible because they were not individually concerned by the regulation.
4. **Forms of Order Sought Before the Court of Justice:** This section outlines the appellants’ requests to the Court of Justice, including the annulment of the General Court’s order and the contested provisions of Regulation 2023/851.
5. **The Appeal:** This is the main part of the judgment, where the Court of Justice examines the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants.
* **First Plea:** The appellants argued that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the condition that the applicants must be individually concerned by the contested regulation. They claimed that the General Court failed to adequately consider their specific position on the market and their particular circumstances. The Court of Justice rejects this plea, finding that the General Court did not err in its assessment of the facts and that the appellants were not individually concerned by the regulation in a way that distinguished them from other economic operators.
* **Second Plea:** The appellants argued that the General Court’s decision violated their right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They claimed that they had no other means of challenging the regulation. The Court of Justice rejects this plea, stating that Article 47 of the Charter does not alter the system of judicial review provided by the Treaties and that the appellants cannot circumvent the admissibility requirements for direct actions.
6. **Decision on Costs:** The Court orders the appellants to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the conditions for the admissibility of actions for annulment brought by individuals against EU legislation. The Court reiterates that individuals must be individually concerned by the contested act, meaning that it must affect them in a way that is specific to them and distinguishes them from all other persons. The Court also clarifies that the right to effective judicial protection does not require unconditional access to direct actions before the EU courts and that the existing system of judicial review, as defined by the Treaties, must be respected.
Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 15 mai 2025.#UV contre Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS).#Renvoi préjudiciel – Politique sociale – Directive 79/7/CEE – Égalité de traitement entre hommes et femmes en matière de sécurité sociale – Article 4, paragraphes 1 et 2 – Article 7, paragraphe 1 – Législation nationale prévoyant un complément de pension octroyé aux femmes bénéficiant d’une pension contributive de retraite et ayant eu un ou plusieurs enfants biologiques ou adoptés – Possibilité d’octroyer ce complément aux hommes soumise à des conditions supplémentaires – Discrimination directe fondée sur le sexe – Article 23 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne – Mesures d’action positive.#Affaire C-623/23.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC on equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The judgment addresses the compatibility of national legislation that provides a pension supplement to women who receive contributory retirement pensions and have had one or more children, while men in similar situations are subject to additional conditions to receive the same supplement.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background**: It outlines the context of the requests for a preliminary ruling, the legal framework (EU and Spanish law), the disputes in the main proceedings, the questions referred to the Court, and the procedure before the Court.
2. **Consideration of the Questions Referred**: It addresses the interpretation of Directive 79/7/EEC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically regarding the compatibility of the Spanish legislation with the principle of equal treatment.
3. **Judgment**: It provides the Court’s answers to the questions posed by the national courts.
4. **Costs**: It determines how the costs of the proceedings should be allocated.
The key provisions of the judgment are:
* The Court confirms that Directive 79/7/EEC applies to statutory schemes providing protection against old age.
* It reiterates that the principle of equal treatment implies the absence of any discrimination based on sex, either directly or indirectly, concerning the calculation of benefits.
* The Court finds that the Spanish legislation, which grants a pension supplement to women who have had children while imposing additional conditions on men in similar situations, constitutes direct discrimination based on sex, violating Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC.
* It clarifies that neither Article 4(2) nor Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 79/7/EEC provides a basis for justifying such discrimination.
* The Court also rules that Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which allows for specific advantages in favor of the under-represented sex, does not justify the discriminatory national legislation.
* Finally, the Court clarifies that if a father’s claim for a pension supplement is accepted due to the discriminatory nature of the national legislation, the fact that the supplement is then withdrawn from the mother (because the supplement can only be granted to one parent) does not invalidate the finding of discrimination.
The most important provision is that the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that national legislation that grants a pension supplement to women who have had children while imposing additional conditions on men in similar situations constitutes direct discrimination based on sex and is incompatible with EU law.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Sberbank of Russia PAO v Single Resolution Board.Appeal – Economic and Monetary Union – Banking Union – Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail – Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) not to adopt a resolution scheme – Shareholders – Lack of direct concern.Case C-793/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal by Sberbank of Russia PAO against a decision by the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The SRB had decided not to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Europe AG, a subsidiary of Sberbank of Russia. The CJEU upholds the General Court’s decision to dismiss Sberbank of Russia’s action against the SRB decision as inadmissible. The court found that the SRB’s decision did not directly affect Sberbank of Russia’s legal situation as a shareholder.
The judgment addresses Sberbank of Russia’s appeal against the General Court’s order, which had dismissed its action for annulment of the SRB’s decision not to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Europe AG and the related valuation report. The legal context revolves around Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which establishes the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). The judgment examines whether the SRB’s decision directly concerned Sberbank of Russia, a key criterion for the admissibility of an action under Article 263 TFEU.
The key provision in this judgment is the interpretation of “direct concern” under Article 263 TFEU. The CJEU reiterates that for a decision addressed to another person to be of direct concern to the applicant, it must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and leave no discretion to the addressees entrusted with its implementation. The court found that the SRB’s decision not to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Europe AG primarily affected the legal situation of Sberbank Europe AG itself, and any effects on Sberbank of Russia as a shareholder were merely economic and indirect. The court also clarified that a valuation report cannot be challenged separately from the decision of the Board.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Sberbank of Russia PAO v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Appeal – Economic and Monetary Union – Banking union – Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail – Adoption of a resolution scheme by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) – Preparatory act – Act not open to challenge – Endorsement decision by the Commission – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility.Case C-791/23 P.
This judgment concerns an appeal by Sberbank of Russia PAO against a General Court order dismissing its action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) decision adopting a resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. (a Croatian subsidiary), related valuation reports, and the European Commission’s decision endorsing the resolution scheme. The core issue revolves around whether Sberbank of Russia was directly affected by these decisions, a necessary condition for bringing an action under Article 263 TFEU. The Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision, finding that Sberbank of Russia was not directly concerned by the SRB’s decision or the Commission’s endorsement.
The structure of the judgment involves an examination of the legal context, the background to the proceedings, the procedure before the General Court, and the grounds of appeal raised by Sberbank of Russia. The Court addresses three main grounds of appeal: infringement of Article 263 TFEU, an overly narrow definition of “direct concern,” and misinterpretation of the appellant’s claims. The Court dismisses all grounds of appeal, finding that the SRB’s decision was not open to challenge and that the Commission’s endorsement decision did not directly affect Sberbank of Russia’s legal situation.
The most important provision for understanding the judgment is Article 263 TFEU, which governs the conditions under which individuals or entities can bring actions for annulment of EU acts. The judgment clarifies the interpretation of “direct concern” in the context of banking resolution, emphasizing that an indirect shareholder’s economic interests are not sufficient to establish direct concern. Additionally, the judgment confirms that valuation reports related to resolution decisions cannot be challenged separately from the SRB’s decision.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Sberbank of Russia PAO v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Appeal – Economic and Monetary Union – Banking union – Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail – Adoption of a resolution scheme by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) – Preparatory act – Act not open to challenge – Endorsement decision by the Commission – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility.Case C-792/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding an appeal by Sberbank of Russia PAO against a decision of the General Court. The General Court had dismissed Sberbank’s action against the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) decision adopting a resolution scheme for Sberbank banka d.d. (Sberbank Slovenia), valuation reports related to that bank, and the European Commission’s decision endorsing the resolution scheme. The Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision, finding Sberbank’s appeal unfounded.
The judgment addresses whether Sberbank of Russia was directly affected by the SRB’s decision and the Commission’s endorsement decision, a requirement for bringing an action under Article 263 TFEU. The Court of Justice concludes that the SRB’s resolution action does not produce binding legal effects and cannot be challenged. It also finds that the Commission’s endorsement decision did not directly affect Sberbank’s legal situation, as Sberbank of Russia was not a direct shareholder of Sberbank Slovenia. The Court also dismisses Sberbank’s claim regarding the valuation reports, stating they cannot be challenged separately from the SRB’s decision.
The key takeaway from this judgment is that a parent company (Sberbank of Russia) cannot directly challenge decisions related to the resolution of a subsidiary (Sberbank Slovenia) when the parent company’s ownership is indirect (through Sberbank Europe). The Court emphasizes that only direct shareholders have the right to dispose of assets, receive dividends, or participate in management. This case clarifies the conditions under which a party can bring an action against EU decisions related to banking resolution, particularly concerning the requirement of being directly affected by the decision.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Bundesminister für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen and M M.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products – Directive 2014/40/EU – Article 2(40) – Concept of ‘placing on the market’ – Article 23(2) – Enforcement – Scope – Placing on the market of tobacco products the packaging of which includes non-compliant elements – Supply of tobacco products by a wholesaler to a retail outlet – Fine imposed on the managing director of a company acting as a wholesaler.Case C-717/23.
This judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarifies the scope of the prohibition on placing non-compliant tobacco products on the market, specifically focusing on the supply chain and the responsibilities of wholesalers. The case originates from Austria, where a managing director of a tobacco wholesaler was fined for supplying cigarettes with labeling that violated EU regulations.
The CJEU was asked to determine whether the prohibition on placing tobacco products with misleading labeling on the market applies only when a retailer sells to a consumer, or if it also covers the earlier stage when a wholesaler supplies the product to a retailer. The Court ruled that the prohibition is not limited to the retail stage but extends to all stages of the supply chain.
The judgment emphasizes that Member States must ensure that non-compliant tobacco products are not placed on the market at any point in the supply chain, not just at the point of sale to the consumer. This interpretation is based on the context of Directive 2014/40/EU, the objective of protecting health and consumers, and the broader regulatory framework, including Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance. The Court also considered that limiting the prohibition to the retail stage would undermine the effectiveness of the enforcement obligation imposed on Member States and the directive itself.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2025.Metsä Fibre Oy v Energiavirasto.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Union Registry – Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 – Record of a surrender of such allowances in that registry – Finality of transactions – Article 40 – Reversal of finalised processes – Article 70 – Surrender under a provision of EU law subsequently invalidated by the Court of Justice – Impossibility, for the operator, to recover the allowances concerned for the period in question – Validity.Case C-414/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation and validity of certain articles of Regulation No. 389/2013, which establishes a Union Registry for greenhouse gas emission allowances. The case originates from a request for a preliminary ruling by a Finnish court concerning a dispute between Metsä Fibre Oy and the Finnish Energy Agency (Energiavirasto).
The judgment addresses whether Articles 40 and 70 of Regulation No. 389/2013, concerning the finality of transactions and the reversal of finalized processes in the Union Registry, are valid in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 17 (right to property). The dispute arose because Metsä Fibre surrendered greenhouse gas emission allowances based on EU law that was later invalidated by the CJEU. The company sought to recover these allowances, but the Energy Agency denied the request due to the time limits set out in Regulation No. 389/2013.
The Court ruled that Articles 40 and 70 of Regulation No. 389/2013 are valid. It clarified that while these articles prevent the reversal of the transaction in the Union Registry, Article 40(3) allows the account holder to pursue other remedies, such as recovery, restitution, or damages, under national law. The Court emphasized that the operator should be placed in the same position as if the invalidated provisions had never existed, potentially through damages that are economically equivalent to the value of the excess allowances surrendered.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 May 2025.„Tauritus“ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Method for determining the customs value – Article 70 – Transaction value – Goods imported on the basis of a provisional purchase price – Definitive price dependent on various factors not known on the date of acceptance of the customs declaration.Case C-782/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Union Customs Code, specifically concerning the determination of customs value for goods imported with a provisional purchase price. The case revolves around a Lithuanian company, Tauritus UAB, and a dispute with the Lithuanian customs authorities over import VAT and default interest.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment clarifies the application of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (the Union Customs Code) concerning the method of customs valuation based on the transaction value. It also touches upon Article 173(3) regarding the amendment of customs declarations. The judgment refers to related EU legislation, including Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 and Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, which provide detailed rules for implementing the Union Customs Code.
The CJEU addresses two main questions:
1. Whether Article 70 of the Union Customs Code applies when only a provisional price is known at the time of import, with the final price adjusted later based on factors beyond the parties’ control.
2. Whether Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code obliges a declarant to request an adjustment of the customs value when the final price becomes known after the goods have been released for free circulation, especially when the initial declaration was based on Article 74 of that code (secondary methods of customs valuation).
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The court emphasizes that the transaction value method (Article 70) is the primary basis for determining customs value. It clarifies that even if the final price is not known at the time of import, the transaction value method can still be applied if the final price is determinable based on objective criteria. The judgment highlights the use of the simplified customs declaration procedure (Articles 166 and 167 of the Union Customs Code) as a means to reconcile the provisional price declared initially with the final price determined later.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important takeaway is the CJEU’s emphasis on using the transaction value method whenever possible, even when the final price is not immediately known. Companies importing goods under provisional pricing agreements should utilize the simplified customs declaration procedure to ensure compliance with EU customs regulations. This involves declaring a provisional price initially and then submitting a supplementary declaration with the final price once it is determined. The judgment confirms that customs authorities should allow for such adjustments when the final price is based on objective and predetermined criteria.
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 were accepted by the Icelandic authorities. As a result of this acceptance, ESA has closed the case.
The notice provides key details of the decision, including the date of adoption (January 29, 2025), the case number (81738), the decision number (005/25/COL), and the EFTA State involved (Iceland). It identifies the beneficiary of the aid (Sorpa bs.) and the legal basis for the aid (the Icelandic Income Tax Act No. 90/2003). The notice clearly states that the outcome is a determination of “No State aid” due to the acceptance of appropriate measures.
The most important aspect of this notice is the confirmation that Iceland has agreed to abolish the income tax exemption previously enjoyed by Sorpa bs. This signifies a correction of a potential distortion of competition and ensures compliance with state aid rules within the EFTA framework. The notice also provides a link to the authentic text of the decision on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website for further information.
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 within the EEA framework. It also mandates the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, specifically in the EEA section and supplement, and specifies that the decision comes into force on the day of its adoption.
The structure of the act is very simple. It consists of a preamble that cites the legal basis for the decision, referencing the EEA Agreement, Protocol 38d on the EEA Financial Mechanism, and other relevant decisions and regulations. Following the preamble, the decision includes 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 states the entry into force date. There are no changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text.
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 be legally binding and operational within the EEA. The other articles are standard clauses concerning publication and entry into force, which are necessary for the proper implementation of the decision but less critical in terms of the regulation’s content and application.
