Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003
This regulation mandates the use of specific identifying reference data, including the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI), for Over-The-Counter (OTC) interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps. Effective September 1, 2026, financial institutions must use the data outlined in the Annex (Table 1 for OTC interest rate swaps) for transparency reporting under MiFIR. This includes data points such as asset class, instrument type, underlying asset type, notional currency, delivery type, notional schedule, underlying reference rate, standard business terms, contractual term, effective date offset, and roll convention. Table 2 in the Annex specifies standard business terms for various reference rates for OTC interest rate swaps, detailing aspects like business day adjustment conventions, day count conventions, and payment frequencies.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/929
This regulation approves 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 6 (in-can preservatives) and 13 (metalworking-fluid preservatives), subject to specific conditions detailed in the Annex. These conditions include requirements for product assessment covering exposures, risks, and efficacy linked to the uses of BIT for industrial, professional, and non-professional users. The regulation also mandates specific labeling requirements for treated articles containing BIT. For mixtures intended for non-professional use, the regulation sets concentration limits for BIT to prevent skin sensitization, unless exposure can be avoided through the use of personal protective equipment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/935
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/918, updating the technical specifications for data requirements regarding Global Value Chains (GVC). The annex of the previous regulation is replaced by the new annex to this regulation. The core of the regulation lies in its annex, which provides detailed technical specifications for data collection related to GVCs. This includes specifying variables, measurement units, statistical population, data transmission deadlines (T + 21 months, starting from reference period 2024-2026). The Annex outlines mandatory and voluntary variables and includes detailed breakdowns for each variable to ensure consistency and comparability across Member States.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/937
This regulation approves 2,2-Dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide (DBNPA) as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 (preservatives for products during storage). The approval is subject to conditions outlined in the annex. These conditions include limiting its use to short-term preservation by industrial users in specific applications and assessing exposures, risks, and efficacy. There are also restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles and requirements for appropriate labeling.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/930
This regulation grants a Union authorisation to MacDermid Hungary Kft for ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’ under authorisation number EU-0032996-0000, valid from 11 June 2025 until 31 October 2034. The regulation states that the product must comply with the summary of biocidal product characteristics (SPC) detailed in the Annex. The Annex provides a detailed summary of the product characteristics, including authorised uses, general directions for use, and risk mitigation measures for PT06, PT11, PT12, PT13.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/968
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, updating the identifying information and statement of reasons for Anatolii Prizenko, a natural person listed under ‘A. Natural persons’ in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2024/2642. The annex replaces the entry for Anatolii Prizenko with updated identifying information and a detailed statement of reasons for his designation due to his involvement in Russian disinformation campaigns.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/922
This regulation mandates the registration of softwood plywood imports originating from Brazil, identified by CN code 4412 39 00. This measure allows for the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if an ongoing investigation confirms dumping. The registration is set to expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/910
This regulation addresses the non-renewal of approval for flufenacet, an active substance used in plant protection products. The regulation states that the approval of flufenacet is not renewed. Member States are required to withdraw authorisations for plant protection products containing flufenacet by December 10, 2025, and any grace periods granted for these products must expire by December 10, 2026.
General Court Judgment – Embassy Sporthandel GmbH v EUIPO
The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision finding a likelihood of confusion between the EU figurative mark “BULL’S THE DART SIDE OF LIFE” and Zwibo BV’s earlier figurative mark “BULL’S.” The court ruled that the similarities, particularly the shared element “BULL’S,” could cause confusion among consumers, especially considering the identical or similar goods they cover.
General Court Judgment – VDK v European Commission
The General Court dismissed the VDK’s action for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/340, which imposes fishing restrictions in certain Natura 2000 sites within the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the North Sea. The court rejected the arguments that the regulation violates the principle of proportionality and misinterprets Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
General Court Judgment – Trademark “Glubschi”
The General Court rejected the request for invalidity of the EU trademark “Glubschi,” concluding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of bad faith on the part of the trademark holder at the time of filing the application. The core legal basis for the judgment is Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001), which concerns bad faith as a ground for invalidity.
General Court Judgment – Airbnb, Inc. v Airtasker Pty Ltd (CANCELLATION PROCEEDINGS)
The General Court partially annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO regarding the revocation of the AIRBNB trademark. The court upheld the revocation of the AIRBNB trademark for several services in Classes 35, 38, 39, 41, and 43, but overturned the Board of Appeal’s decision regarding “providing reviews and feedback about listers and renters of real estate, from virtual communities and from social networking sites” in Class 36.
General Court Judgment – Airbnb, Inc. v Airtasker Pty Ltd (ACTION FOR ANNULMENT)
The General Court dismissed the action brought by Airbnb, Inc. against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO regarding the revocation of the EU trade mark “AIRBNB”. The court found no errors in the Board of Appeal’s assessment that Airbnb, Inc. had not genuinely used the mark for all the goods and services for which it was registered.
General Court Judgment – Lithuanian Media Companies v European Commission
The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision not to raise objections to the amended state aid measures benefiting the Lithuanian public service broadcaster, LRT. The court found that the Commission’s examination of the changes to LRT’s funding scheme was insufficient and that a formal investigation procedure should have been initiated.
General Court Judgment – Figurative Mark “ELSEBAE 4011 B552”
The General Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, confirming the EUIPO’s decision that the earlier mark “Grand Lion 4011 B552” was not put to genuine use and that there were no valid reasons for its non-use. This hinges on Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001, requiring proof of genuine use or valid reasons for non-use of an earlier trademark in opposition proceedings.
General Court Judgment – Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale v Single Resolution Board
The General Court dismissed the applicant’s action, upholding the SRB’s decision regarding the calculation of ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) for the contribution period of 2023. The court clarifies the extent of the SRB’s obligation to provide detailed justifications for its decisions and upholds the SRB’s methodology for assessing risk profiles.
General Court Judgment – KnitPro International
The court upheld the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which declared the trade mark invalid due to its lack of distinctive character. The trade mark in question is a figurative mark consisting of chevrons between two parallel lines, registered for “knitting needles” and “crochet hooks.” The judgment highlights the simple geometric nature of the mark.
General Court Judgment – CaloVital
The court dismissed the appeal by Kap3 Premium Products UG against a decision by the EUIPO, which had rejected their application for the trademark “CaloVital” due to a risk of confusion with the earlier trademark “lovital” held by CuraProducts GmbH. The important provisions include Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trademark is protected.
EFTA Court Order – Case E-27/24, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland
The order states that Case E-27/24 is removed from the Register, and each party will bear its own costs. This likely indicates that the case has been closed due to Iceland taking necessary measures or a settlement between the parties.
EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (Directive 2018/852)
The ESA alleges that Iceland failed to implement Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) of Directive (EU) 2018/852, which amends Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA requests the Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
EFTA Court Judgment – Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC)
The EFTA Court ruled that the assignment of an insurance claim to a third party does not remove its precedence under Article 275(1) of the Solvency II Directive. This means that even if an insurance claim is transferred to another entity, it still retains its priority in insolvency proceedings.
EFTA Court Judgment – Iceland – Regulation 996/2010
The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland had failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 12(3) of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 regarding advance arrangements between its safety investigation authorities and other relevant bodies. Iceland is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (Directive 2018/850)
The ESA alleges that Iceland failed to implement Articles 1(2), 1(3), and 1(4)(b) of Directive (EU) 2018/850, which amends Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, within the prescribed timeframe. The core issue is Iceland’s alleged non-compliance with its obligations under the EEA Agreement, specifically regarding the timely implementation of EU directives.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003 of 24 January 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards OTC derivatives identifying reference data to be used for the purposes of the transparency requirements laid down in Article 8a(2) and Articles 10 and 21
This is Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003, which supplements Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (MiFIR) regarding the identification of reference data for Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives. The regulation specifies the data required to identify OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps for transparency requirements under MiFIR. This aims to enable market participants and authorities to properly identify and distinguish these derivatives for regulatory and market oversight purposes. The regulation mandates the use of specific identifying reference data and the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) to ensure consistent identification of these financial instruments.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 specifies that from 1 September 2026, the identifying reference data for OTC interest rate swaps, as detailed in Table 1 of the Annex, must be used for transparency requirements under Article 8a(2) and Articles 10 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. It also states that the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) must be included in the identifying reference data for OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will come into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex provides two tables: Table 1 lists the identifying reference data for OTC interest rate swaps, including asset class, instrument type, underlying asset type, notional currency, delivery type, notional schedule, underlying reference rate, standard business terms, contractual term, effective date offset, and roll convention. Table 2 specifies standard business terms for reference rates for OTC interest rate swaps, covering aspects such as business day adjustment convention, day count conventions, payment frequencies, fixing lag, calendars, additional payments, roll convention, and effective date offset for various reference rate families (EUR-EURIBOR, EUR-EuroSTR, USD-SOFR, GBP-SONIA, JPY-TONA).
The most important provisions for practical use are those that define the specific data points required for identifying OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps. These include the asset class, instrument type, underlying asset type, notional currency, delivery type, notional schedule, underlying reference rate, standard business terms, contractual term, effective date offset, and roll convention. The requirement to include the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) is also critical. Market participants need to ensure that their reporting systems are updated to include these data points by the specified date (1 September 2026) to comply with transparency requirements under MiFIR.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/929 of 21 May 2025 approving 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 6 and 13 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/929 concerns the approval of 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 6 (in-can preservatives) and 13 (metalworking-fluid preservatives) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. It establishes the conditions under which BIT can be used in these product types, focusing on specific requirements for product assessment and the placing on the market of treated articles. The regulation aims to ensure that the use of BIT in biocidal products meets the safety and efficacy standards set by the EU.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that BIT is approved as an active substance for product-types 6 and 13, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The annex specifies the conditions for the approval of BIT for each product type, including requirements for product assessment, instructions for use, and precautions to be indicated on the label of treated articles. It also sets conditions for the placing on the market of treated articles, including labeling requirements and restrictions on the concentration of BIT in mixtures for non-professional use.
The most important provisions of this regulation are those outlined in the Annex, which detail the specific conditions for the use of BIT in product types 6 and 13. These conditions include requirements for assessing exposures, risks, and efficacy linked to the uses of BIT, as well as specific attention to industrial, professional, and non-professional users. Additionally, the regulation mandates specific labeling requirements for treated articles containing BIT, ensuring that consumers are informed about the presence of the substance and any associated risks. For mixtures intended for non-professional use, the regulation sets concentration limits for BIT to prevent skin sensitization, unless exposure can be avoided through the use of personal protective equipment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/935 of 21 May 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/918 laying down technical specifications of data requirements for the topic Global Value Chains pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/2152 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/935 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/918, which lays down the technical specifications for data requirements regarding Global Value Chains (GVC). The regulation aims to ensure that Member States collect and provide comparable and harmonized data on GVCs, as mandated by Regulation (EU) 2019/2152 on European business statistics. The amendment updates the variables, breakdowns, and specifications for data collection to improve the accuracy and relevance of the statistics on global value chains.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the annex of the previous regulation 2022/918 is replaced by the text in the annex to this regulation. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force and the date of application. The main body of the act is the Annex, which provides detailed technical specifications for data requirements related to Global Value Chains (GVC). This includes specifying variables, measurement units, statistical population, data transmission deadlines, and the first reference period. The annex details the scope of the GVC topic, including business functions, global value chains, international sourcing, events impacting GVC arrangements, and movement of business functions. It outlines mandatory and voluntary variables, measurement units (absolute value), and the statistical population (market producers of NACE Sections B to O with 50 or more employees). The data transmission deadline is set at T + 21 months, with the first reference period being 2024-2026. The annex also includes simplifications such as the 1% rule, which allows Member States to skip compiling variables if their contribution is less than 1% of the EU total. It specifies the data to be collected or obtained from registers, such as the main economic activity, number of employees, and information on participation in an enterprise group. Furthermore, the annex provides detailed breakdowns for each variable, including breakdowns by activity, business function, size class, type of goods/services, geographical area, and group status.
The most important provisions for users of this act are the detailed breakdowns for each variable. These breakdowns specify how data should be categorized and reported, ensuring consistency and comparability across Member States. For example, variable (2) on the number of enterprises purchasing goods from abroad has breakdowns by activity, type of goods, and geographical area, as well as by type of goods, group status, and geographical area. Similarly, variable (7) on the number of enterprises carrying out international sourcing includes breakdowns by activity and size class, business function and kind of business partner, business function and geographical area, business function and group status, and kind of business partner and group status. These detailed specifications are crucial for ensuring that data collection is harmonized and that the resulting statistics accurately reflect the dynamics of global value chains in the European Union.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/937 of 21 May 2025 approving 2,2-Dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide (DBNPA) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/937 approves 2,2-Dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide (DBNPA) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6, which are preservatives for products during storage. The regulation acknowledges DBNPA’s endocrine-disrupting properties but approves its use under specific conditions due to its necessity in certain industrial applications where suitable alternatives are not currently available. This approval is based on an assessment by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and takes into account a public consultation and the views of Member States. The regulation aims to balance the risks associated with DBNPA’s use against the potential negative impacts of its non-approval on society.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that DBNPA is approved as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6, subject to the conditions outlined in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides specific conditions for the approval of DBNPA, including requirements for product assessment, restrictions on the types of uses for which products containing DBNPA can be authorized (short-term preservation by industrial users of mineral slurries and other additives used in paper production, paints and coatings and raw materials used for their production, and polymer dispersions), and conditions for the placing on the market of treated articles.
The most important provisions of this act are those that outline the specific conditions for the use of DBNPA. These include the limitations on its use to short-term preservation by industrial users in specific applications, the requirement for product assessments to consider exposures, risks, and efficacy, and the need for Member States to evaluate whether the condition set out in Article 5(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 is satisfied. Additionally, the restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles and the requirement for appropriate labeling are crucial for ensuring the safe use of DBNPA and minimizing potential risks to human health and the environment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/930 of 21 May 2025 granting a Union authorisation for the single biocidal product Fernox Biocide AF10 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/930, which grants a Union authorisation for the biocidal product ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’. The product contains CMIT/MIT as the active substance and is intended for use as a preservative in various product types. The regulation specifies the conditions for making the product available on the market and its use within the European Union.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation to MacDermid Hungary Kft for ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’ under authorisation number EU-0032996-0000, valid from 11 June 2025 until 31 October 2034. It also states that the product must comply with the summary of biocidal product characteristics (SPC) detailed in the Annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex provides a detailed summary of the product characteristics, including administrative information, product composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorised uses, general directions for use, and other relevant information.
The most important provisions for users of this regulation are found in the Annex, which details the specific conditions for the authorised uses of ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’. This includes the types of products it can be used in (PT06, PT11, PT12, PT13), the target organisms, application methods, application rates, user categories, and specific risk mitigation measures. It also provides instructions for safe disposal, storage conditions, and shelf-life. Users must adhere to these conditions to ensure the safe and effective use of the biocidal product.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/968 of 20 May 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities
This Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/968 amends Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, which concerns restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities. The new regulation updates the identifying information and statement of reasons for one natural person listed in the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643. This update is based on a review of that earlier decision.
The structure of the regulation is simple: it has two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 is amended as per the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex replaces the entry for Anatolii Prizenko under the heading ‘A. Natural persons’ in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, providing updated identifying information and a revised statement of reasons for his inclusion on the sanctions list.
The most important provision is the amendment in the Annex, which replaces the entry for Anatolii Prizenko. It details his updated identifying information (date and place of birth, nationality, gender) and provides a detailed statement of reasons for his designation. The statement explains his involvement in coordinating the dispatch of Moldovan citizens to France to paint Stars of David, an operation linked to Russian disinformation campaigns and the GRU, aimed at fueling tensions in French society. This updated information reinforces the basis for the restrictive measures applied to him.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/922 of 20 May 2025 making imports of softwood plywood originating in Brazil subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/922 introduces the registration of softwood plywood imports originating from Brazil. This action is a preliminary step that allows for the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the ongoing investigation confirms that these imports are being dumped on the EU market. The registration ensures that if duties are eventually imposed, they can be applied to imports that occurred during the registration period.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration and two articles. The first article directs customs authorities to register imports of softwood plywood from Brazil, specifically defined by its composition and CN code (4412 39 00). The registration is set to expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force. The second article states that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The most important provision is Article 1, which mandates the registration of specific softwood plywood imports from Brazil. This means that importers of this product need to be aware that their imports are being tracked, and they could potentially be subject to anti-dumping duties retroactively if the investigation determines that dumping is occurring and causing injury to the EU industry. The nine-month expiry of the registration period is also a key element, as it sets a time limit on this measure.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/910 of 20 May 2025 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance flufenacet, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and amending Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 540/2011 and (EU) 2015/408
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/910 addresses the non-renewal of the approval for the active substance flufenacet, used in plant protection products, within the European Union. The regulation concludes that flufenacet does not meet the criteria for renewal due to concerns about its potential as an endocrine disruptor and the risk of groundwater contamination by its metabolite, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). Consequently, the regulation amends existing regulations to remove flufenacet from the list of approved active substances and candidates for substitution.
The regulation consists of 6 articles. It states that the approval of flufenacet is not renewed and amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by deleting the row concerning flufenacet from the list of approved active substances. It also amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 by removing flufenacet from the list of candidates for substitution. Member States are required to withdraw authorisations for plant protection products containing flufenacet by December 10, 2025, and any grace periods granted for these products must expire by December 10, 2026. The regulation enters into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The most important provisions of this regulation are the non-renewal of flufenacet’s approval and the deadlines set for the withdrawal of authorisations and the expiration of grace periods for plant protection products containing it. This means that after the specified dates, flufenacet can no longer be used in plant protection products within the EU unless a new application for approval is submitted and approved.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2025.Embassy Sporthandel GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BULL’S THE DART SIDE OF LIFE – Earlier EU figurative mark BULL’S – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-1054/23.
This judgment concerns a dispute between Embassy Sporthandel GmbH and Zwibo BV regarding the registration of the EU figurative mark “BULL’S THE DART SIDE OF LIFE.” The General Court upheld the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had found a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and Zwibo BV’s earlier figurative mark “BULL’S.” The court ruled that the similarities between the marks, particularly the shared element “BULL’S,” could cause confusion among consumers, especially considering the identical or similar goods they cover.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the application for the EU trade mark, the opposition filed by Zwibo BV, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. It then presents the forms of order sought by the parties involved. The court proceeds to analyze the case under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court assesses the relevant public, the similarity of the goods, and, most importantly, the comparison of the signs at issue, including their distinctive and dominant elements, as well as their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity. Finally, the court conducts a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and rules on the costs. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is an original judgment.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court emphasizes that this assessment must be global, taking into account all relevant factors, including the similarity of the signs and the goods or services they cover, as well as the perception of the relevant public. The court also clarifies the criteria for determining the distinctive and dominant elements of a mark, which play a crucial role in the comparison of the signs.
Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 21 mai 2025.#Verband der Deutschen Kutter- und Küstenfischer eV (VDK) contre Commission européenne.#Pêche – Règlement (UE) no 1380/2013 – Conservation des ressources biologiques de la mer – Règlement délégué (UE) 2023/340 – Mesures de conservation en matière de pêche – Restrictions – Mer du Nord – Zone économique exclusive allemande – Protection de l’environnement – Directive 92/43/CEE – Conservation des habitats naturels ainsi que de la faune et de la flore sauvages – Directive 2008/56/CE – Stratégie pour le milieu marin – Égalité de traitement – Proportionnalité.#Affaire T-265/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of the European Union from May 21, 2025, regarding a case (T-265/23) brought by Verband der Deutschen Kutter- und Küstenfischer eV (VDK), a German fishing association, against the European Commission. The Kingdom of the Netherlands intervened in support of the Commission.
The essence of the judgment is the court’s decision to dismiss the VDK’s action for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/340. This regulation concerns conservation measures applicable in certain Natura 2000 sites within the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the North Sea. The VDK argued that the regulation, which imposes fishing restrictions, is unlawful.
The judgment addresses two main arguments raised by VDK: that the regulation violates the principle of proportionality and that the Commission misinterpreted Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 by adopting conservation measures for gravel areas under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The court rejects both arguments, finding that the Commission did not commit any manifest error in its assessment and that the measures are not disproportionate.
The main provisions of the judgment revolve around the court’s analysis of the VDK’s claims. The court examines whether the Commission exceeded its discretionary powers in adopting the regulation, whether the measures are based on sufficient scientific evidence, and whether they are proportionate to the objectives pursued. The court emphasizes that the Commission has a wide margin of discretion in matters of fisheries conservation and that judicial review is limited to verifying whether the Commission committed a manifest error or exceeded its powers. The court finds that the Commission adequately justified the conservation measures, taking into account scientific advice and the need to balance environmental protection with socio-economic considerations. The court also addresses specific arguments raised by the VDK, such as the definition of reefs, the extent of protected areas, and the treatment of different fishing gears.
For those affected by fishing regulations in the North Sea, particularly in the German EEZ, the judgment confirms the validity of the conservation measures imposed by Regulation (EU) 2023/340. It clarifies the scope of the Commission’s powers in adopting such measures and the limits of judicial review. The judgment also provides guidance on the interpretation of key concepts such as “conservation measures,” “good environmental status,” and “spatial protection measures” under EU environmental law.
Urteil des Gerichts (Zweite Kammer) vom 21. Mai 2025.#Ty, Inc. gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Nichtigkeitsverfahren – Unionswortmarke Glubschi – Internationale Registrierungen mit Benennung der Europäischen Union – Wortmarke und Bildmarke Glubschis – Absoluter Nichtigkeitsgrund – Keine Bösgläubigkeit – Art. 52 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 207/2009 (jetzt Art. 59 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung [EU] 2017/1001).#Rechtssachen T-135/24 und T-136/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the validity of the European Union trademark “Glubschi”. The case revolves around a request for invalidity of this trademark based on the alleged bad faith of the trademark holder at the time of filing the application. The court ultimately rejects the request for invalidity, finding that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate bad faith.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
* **Introduction:** Sets out the context of the dispute, the parties involved, and the requests made by the applicant.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the factual background, including the trademark applications, the goods and services covered, and the reasons for the invalidity requests.
* **Procedure before EUIPO:** Details the decisions of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) and the appeals lodged by the applicant.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments of the applicant, EUIPO, and the intervening party.
* **Legal Framework:** Outlines the relevant provisions of EU trademark law, particularly regarding bad faith as a ground for invalidity.
* **Assessment of Bad Faith:** Analyzes the specific circumstances of the case, including the origin and use of the sign, the commercial context of the trademark applications, and the alleged violation of contractual obligations.
* **Conclusion:** Rejects the appeal and orders the applicant to pay the costs.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001):** This article is the legal basis for the invalidity request, stating that a trademark can be declared invalid if the applicant was acting in bad faith when filing the application.
* **Considerations regarding the assessment of bad faith:** The judgment provides guidance on how to assess bad faith in trademark cases, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factual circumstances. It clarifies that the intention of the trademark applicant is a subjective element that must be determined objectively. The judgment also confirms that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging bad faith.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2025.Airbnb, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark AIRBNB – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-94/24.
This judgment concerns a dispute between Airbnb, Inc. and Airtasker Pty Ltd regarding the EU trademark “AIRBNB.” Airtasker applied for revocation of the AIRBNB mark based on the argument that Airbnb had not genuinely used the mark for all the services for which it was registered.
The General Court partially annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The court upheld the revocation of the AIRBNB trademark for several services in Classes 35, 38, 39, 41, and 43, finding that Airbnb had not provided sufficient evidence of genuine use for those services. However, the court overturned the Board of Appeal’s decision regarding “providing reviews and feedback about listers and renters of real estate, from virtual communities and from social networking sites” in Class 36, concluding that Airbnb had demonstrated genuine use for these particular services.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial trademark application by Airbnb, the subsequent revocation application by Airtasker, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.
* It identifies the services for which the Board of Appeal found genuine use and those for which it did not.
* It presents the forms of order sought by Airbnb and EUIPO.
* The court then proceeds with its legal analysis, focusing on Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, which governs the revocation of EU trademarks due to lack of genuine use.
* The court divides its analysis into two parts: whether the Board of Appeal unjustifiably limited certain services to “temporary lodging and leisure activities” and whether the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment regarding the services for which it revoked the mark.
* The court examines each class of services (35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 43) separately, assessing the evidence provided by Airbnb to determine whether genuine use had been demonstrated.
* Finally, the court rules on the action, partially annulling the Board of Appeal’s decision and ordering each party to bear its own costs.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001**: This article is the core of the judgment, as it defines the conditions under which an EU trademark can be revoked for lack of genuine use. It specifies that if a trademark has not been put to genuine use in the European Union for a continuous period of five years, the rights of the proprietor can be revoked unless there are proper reasons for non-use.
* **The court’s interpretation of “genuine use”**: The judgment provides a detailed interpretation of what constitutes “genuine use” of a trademark. It emphasizes that the mark must be used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services. The use must be real and not merely token, and it must be public and outward.
* **The court’s assessment of evidence**: The judgment outlines the criteria for assessing evidence of genuine use. It states that a global assessment must be carried out, taking into account all relevant factors, and that genuine use cannot be proved by probabilities or presumptions but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence.
* **The distinction between different classes of services**: The court’s analysis highlights the importance of distinguishing between different classes of services and assessing the evidence of genuine use separately for each class. It also clarifies that the classification of a service under other EU laws is not decisive for its classification under the Nice Agreement.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2025.Airbnb, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark AIRBNB – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-1032/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the revocation of the EU trade mark “AIRBNB.” Airtasker Pty Ltd. filed an application for revocation of the mark based on the argument that Airbnb, Inc. had not genuinely used the mark for all the goods and services for which it was registered. The court partially upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had revoked the mark for some goods and services but maintained it for others. Airbnb, Inc. sought annulment of the decision, but the General Court dismissed the action, finding no errors in the Board of Appeal’s assessment.
The judgment is structured around a single plea raised by Airbnb, Inc., alleging infringement of Article 58 of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the genuine use of an EU trade mark. This plea is divided into six parts, each addressing different aspects of the Board of Appeal’s decision regarding specific goods and services. The court examines whether the Board of Appeal erred in limiting the scope of certain goods and services to a subcategory related to “temporary accommodation and leisure activities,” in its assessment of “advertising” services, “cleaning services,” “travel information,” and “social and collaborative” services. The court assesses the evidence provided by Airbnb, Inc. to determine if it demonstrates genuine use of the mark for the contested goods and services.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the interpretation of “genuine use” of a trade mark, particularly in the context of online platforms. The court emphasizes that the use must be real and not merely token, and it must serve to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services. The judgment also clarifies that the breadth of the goods and services for which a mark is registered must be balanced against the actual use of the mark. Furthermore, the court’s analysis of “advertising” services highlights the distinction between promoting one’s own services and providing advertising services to third parties.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 May 2025.Interneto žiniasklaidos asociacija and Others v European Commission.State aid – State measures amending the existing aid granted to the Lithuanian public service broadcasting organisation LRT – Rejection of a complaint – Decision not to raise any objections – Action for annulment – Status as an interested party – Safeguarding of procedural rights – Admissibility – Serious difficulties – Substantial alteration to existing aid.Case T-72/22.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a case brought by several Lithuanian media companies against the European Commission. The case concerns state aid granted to the Lithuanian public service broadcaster, LRT. The applicants sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to raise objections to the amended state aid measures benefiting LRT.
The judgment revolves around whether the Commission was correct in its assessment that changes to the funding scheme of LRT, introduced in 2015 and 2020, did not constitute a substantial alteration to existing aid. The court examines whether the Commission should have initiated a formal investigation procedure due to “serious difficulties” in determining if the changes were indeed substantial.
The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission’s examination of the changes to LRT’s funding scheme was insufficient and incomplete. The court highlights that the Commission failed to adequately consider the consequences of eliminating advertising revenue as a source of funding for LRT and did not sufficiently examine whether the amount of state compensation allocated to LRT was substantially altered following the 2015 and 2020 amendments. The court concludes that the Commission should have had serious doubts about the classification of the amendments as existing aid and should have initiated a formal investigation.
Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 21 mai 2025.#Bella Tawziaa II, SLU contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative ELSEBAE 4011 B552 – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative antérieure Grand Lion 4011 B552 – Motif relatif de refus – Absence d’usage sérieux de la marque antérieure – Article 47, paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Absence de juste motif pour le non-usage.#Affaire T-1085/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court regarding an opposition proceeding before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns a request for annulment and reformation of the EUIPO’s decision regarding the figurative mark “ELSEBAE 4011 B552” due to a conflict with the earlier figurative EU mark “Grand Lion 4011 B552”. The court dismisses the applicant’s appeal, confirming the EUIPO’s decision that the earlier mark was not put to genuine use and that there were no valid reasons for its non-use.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** Details the application for the EU trademark, the opposition filed by the applicant based on an earlier EU trademark, and the EUIPO’s initial rejection of the opposition due to insufficient proof of genuine use of the earlier mark.
2. **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s request to annul the EUIPO’s decision and the EUIPO’s and the intervener’s (the party applying for the “ELSEBAE” mark) counter-claims to reject the appeal.
3. **Legal Arguments:**
* **Admissibility of Documents:** The Court rejects new documents submitted by the applicant during the hearing, as they were introduced too late and aimed to alter the factual basis of the dispute.
* **Admissibility of New Allegations:** The Court dismisses allegations made for the first time before the Court, which were not previously raised during the administrative proceedings before the EUIPO.
* **Substance of the Appeal:** The applicant argues that the EUIPO incorrectly interpreted “genuine use” and “just reasons for non-use” under Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The Court divides the analysis into two parts:
* Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark.
* Whether the applicant demonstrated valid reasons for the non-use of the mark.
4. **Decision:** The Court rejects the appeal in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to prove genuine use of the earlier mark and did not provide sufficient justification for its non-use.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001**: This article is central to the case, as it deals with the requirement of proving genuine use of an earlier trademark in opposition proceedings. It stipulates that the holder of an earlier EU trademark must prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in the Union during the five years preceding the filing date of the contested trademark application. If the earlier mark has not been used, the holder must provide valid reasons for the non-use.
* The judgment clarifies that new evidence and allegations must be introduced during the EUIPO proceedings and cannot be presented for the first time before the General Court.
* The judgment confirms that the EUIPO and the Court are not bound by decisions of national authorities regarding trademark use.
* The judgment confirms the criteria for assessing “genuine use” of a trademark, including the volume of sales, duration, and frequency of use, and the need for objective evidence.
* The judgment confirms the criteria for assessing “just reasons for non-use,” which must be obstacles directly related to the trademark and independent of the trademark holder’s will.
Urteil des Gerichts (Zweite Kammer) vom 21. Mai 2025.#Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale gegen Einheitlicher Abwicklungsausschuss.#Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion – Bankenunion – Einheitlicher Abwicklungsmechanismus für Kreditinstitute und bestimmte Wertpapierfirmen (SRM) – Einheitlicher Abwicklungsfonds (SRF) – Beschluss des SRB über die Berechnung der für den Beitragszeitraum 2023 im Voraus erhobenen Beiträge – Risikoindikatoren – Nichtverfügbarkeit von Daten.#Rechtssache T-476/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court (Second Chamber) regarding a case (T-476/23) between Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale (the applicant) and the Single Resolution Board (SRB) concerning the calculation of ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) for the contribution period of 2023. The court dismisses the applicant’s action, upholding the SRB’s decision.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses the applicant’s challenge to the SRB’s decision on several grounds, including alleged violations of the right to be heard, insufficient reasoning, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, and errors in the application of risk indicators. The court systematically examines each of the applicant’s nine pleas, as well as additional arguments raised during the proceedings, ultimately rejecting them all.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background of the Dispute:** Describes the context of the case, including the applicant’s status as a credit institution and the SRB’s decision-making process regarding ex-ante contributions to the SRF.
2. **Decision Under Appeal:** Outlines the key elements of the SRB’s decision, including the determination of the annual target level for the 2023 contribution period and the methodology for calculating ex-ante contributions.
3. **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s claims and the SRB’s responses.
4. **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court addresses each of the applicant’s pleas in detail. The court examines the arguments related to procedural rights, the duty to provide reasons, and the substantive application of the relevant regulations.
5. **Costs:** The court orders the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings, as it has lost the case.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing laws. Instead, it interprets and applies existing regulations, particularly Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (on ex-ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements). The court clarifies the scope and application of these regulations in the context of calculating contributions to the SRF.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of the judgment for practical use are the court’s interpretations of the following:
* **Duty to Provide Reasons:** The court clarifies the extent of the SRB’s obligation to provide detailed justifications for its decisions, balancing the need for transparency with the protection of confidential business information.
* **Application of Risk Indicators:** The court upholds the SRB’s methodology for assessing risk profiles, including the use of risk indicators and the assignment of institutions to different risk categories (“bins”).
* **Transitional Provisions:** The court confirms the validity of transitional provisions that allow the SRB to temporarily exclude certain risk indicators due to data availability issues.
* **Discretion of the SRB:** The court recognizes the SRB’s broad discretion in assessing risk and determining contributions, subject to judicial review for manifest errors of assessment.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2025.KnitPro International v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines – Absolute ground for invalidity – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Examination of the grounds for invalidity by the Grand Board of Appeal.Case T-133/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for invalidity of an EU trade mark. The court upholds the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which declared the trade mark invalid due to its lack of distinctive character. The trade mark in question is a figurative mark consisting of chevrons between two parallel lines, registered for “knitting needles” and “crochet hooks.”
The case revolves around whether the figurative mark has sufficient distinctive character to serve as a trade mark for knitting needles and crochet hooks. The Grand Board of Appeal had previously determined that the mark lacked distinctive character, a decision which was contested by KnitPro International. The court’s judgment examines whether the Grand Board of Appeal correctly applied Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, which states that trademarks devoid of any distinctive character shall not be registered.
The court dismisses KnitPro International’s action, agreeing with the Grand Board of Appeal that the mark is a simple geometric figure that does not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the knitting needles and crochet hooks sector. The court finds that the mark is perceived as a simple, ornamental element and is therefore devoid of distinctive character. The court also addresses and dismisses several complaints raised by KnitPro International, including arguments about the relevant public’s perception and the decorative nature of the mark.
Urteil des Gerichts (Siebte Kammer) vom 21. Mai 2025.#Kap3 Premium Products UG (haftungsbeschränkt) gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Widerspruchsverfahren – Anmeldung der Unionswortmarke CaloVital – Ältere Unionswortmarke lovital – Relatives Eintragungshindernis – Verwechslungsgefahr – Art. 8 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-478/24.
This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a trademark dispute. The court dismisses the appeal by Kap3 Premium Products UG against a decision by the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office), which had rejected their application for the trademark “CaloVital” due to a risk of confusion with the earlier trademark “lovital” held by CuraProducts GmbH.
The judgment analyses whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the trademark “CaloVital” and the earlier trademark “lovital”. The applicant, Kap3 Premium Products UG, sought to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which rejected their application for the “CaloVital” trademark. The EUIPO had found a likelihood of confusion with the earlier trademark “lovital,” owned by CuraProducts GmbH. The court examines the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, as well as the similarity of the goods they cover. It concludes that there is at least a medium degree of visual and phonetic similarity and that the goods are identical. Therefore, it confirms the EUIPO’s decision that there is a risk of confusion and dismisses the appeal.
The most important provision is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the relative grounds for refusal of a trademark. This article states that a trademark shall not be registered if, because of its identity with or similarity to an earlier trademark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trademark is protected. The court’s interpretation and application of this article are central to the judgment. The judgment also clarifies how the similarity of trademarks should be assessed, emphasizing that it should be based on the overall impression produced by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements. The court also clarifies the scope of protection of a verbal EU trademark, stating that the protection covers the word as such, regardless of the font used.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT – 5 February 2025 – In Case E-27/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v – Iceland
This is an order from the President of the Court regarding Case E-27/24, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland. The case concerned Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1406 into its national legal order, as required by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The order states that the case is removed from the Register, and each party will bear its own costs.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The order is structured in two points:
* **Point 1:** States that Case E-27/24 is removed from the Register. This indicates that the case has been closed or withdrawn.
* **Point 2:** Specifies that each party (EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland) will bear its own costs of the proceedings. This means neither party will be required to pay the other’s legal expenses.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The key takeaway from this order is that the case regarding Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1406 is no longer active. This could be due to Iceland adopting the necessary measures, a settlement between the parties, or other reasons not specified in the order. The fact that each party bears its own costs suggests a possible compromise or a decision not to pursue the matter further.
Action brought on 9 April 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-3/25)
This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing specific articles of Directive (EU) 2018/852, which amends Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA requests the Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document details the legal and factual background of the case. It starts with ESA’s claim that Iceland has not implemented Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) of Directive (EU) 2018/852, as required by the EEA Agreement. It then describes the series of communications between ESA and Iceland, beginning with a letter of formal notice in March 2022. After Iceland failed to respond, ESA issued a reasoned opinion in May 2022, setting a deadline for compliance. Iceland notified ESA in June 2023 that the Act had been implemented into its national legal order as of 1 January 2023, indicating that Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) remained unimplemented. Subsequent inquiries from ESA in 2023 and 2024 revealed continued delays in implementation. As of March 2025, ESA had not received confirmation that Iceland had implemented the articles, leading to the decision to bring the case before the EFTA Court.
The most important aspect of this document is the allegation that Iceland has failed to implement Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) of Directive (EU) 2018/852, which amends Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. The specific content of these articles is not detailed in this document, but their non-implementation is the core of the legal dispute. The document highlights the procedural steps taken by the ESA, including the formal notice, reasoned opinion, and subsequent inquiries, demonstrating the ESA’s efforts to ensure Iceland’s compliance with its EEA obligations.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 February 2025 in Case E-17/24 – Söderberg & Partners AS v Gable Insurance AG in Konkurs (Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) – Article 268(1)(g) – Article 275(1) – Insurance claims – Privileged status – National insolvency proceedings)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court concerning the interpretation of the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), specifically Articles 268(1)(g) and 275. The case revolves around whether an insurance claim maintains its privileged status in national insolvency proceedings after it has been assigned to a third party through a legal transaction. The Princely Court of Appeal of Liechtenstein requested the interpretation. The EFTA Court ruled that the assignment of an insurance claim to a third party does not remove its precedence under Article 275(1) of the Solvency II Directive.
The judgment addresses a specific question regarding the interpretation of the Solvency II Directive. The core issue is whether the privileged status of insurance claims, as outlined in Article 268(1)(g) and Article 275(1), is affected by the assignment of the claim to a third party. The judgment provides a definitive answer, stating that such assignment does not negate the claim’s privileged status.
The most important provision clarified by this judgment is that the assignment of an insurance claim to a third party does not cause it to lose its privileged status under Article 275(1) of the Solvency II Directive. This means that even if an insurance claim is transferred to another entity through a legal transaction, it still retains its priority in insolvency proceedings as originally intended by the Directive. This interpretation ensures continued protection for insurance claims even after they have been assigned.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 February 2025 in Case E-16/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 – Investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation – Article 12(3) – Advance arrangements)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court concerning Iceland’s failure to comply with Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 regarding the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland, alleging that Iceland did not establish advance arrangements between its safety investigation authorities and other relevant bodies, nor did it communicate these arrangements to the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The Court ruled in favor of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, declaring that Iceland had indeed failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 12(3) of the Regulation. Iceland is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment is structured simply: it identifies the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 12(3) of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010). It then states the Court’s decision, which consists of two points: a declaration of Iceland’s failure to fulfill its obligations and an order for Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is an initial judgment on the matter.
The most important provision arising from this judgment is the declaration that Iceland failed to have in place advance arrangements between safety investigation authorities and other authorities involved in activities related to the safety investigation, and the failure to communicate such arrangements to the EFTA Surveillance Authority. This highlights the importance of having pre-established protocols and communication channels in place to ensure effective and coordinated responses to civil aviation accidents and incidents. Iceland is now obligated to establish these arrangements and communicate them to the EFTA Surveillance Authority to comply with the Regulation.
Action brought on 9 April 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-4/25)
This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing specific articles of Directive (EU) 2018/850, which amends Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA claims Iceland neither adopted the necessary measures nor informed the ESA of such adoption. The ESA requests the Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document details the legal and factual background of the case. It starts with ESA’s claim that Iceland failed to implement Articles 1(2), 1(3), and 1(4)(b) of Directive (EU) 2018/850 within the stipulated time. The timeline includes ESA sending a letter of formal notice in August 2022, followed by a reasoned opinion in February 2023, setting a deadline for compliance. Iceland notified ESA in June 2023 that the Act had been implemented into its national legal order as of 1 January 2023, but indicated that Articles 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4)(b) of the Directive would be implemented in the autumn of 2023. Subsequent inquiries by ESA revealed ongoing delays, with Iceland repeatedly postponing the implementation date. As of the date of the application (April 9, 2025), ESA had not received confirmation or information that Iceland had implemented the articles in question.
The most important aspect of this document is the ESA’s claim that Iceland failed to implement specific provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/850 related to waste landfill, despite multiple notifications and extensions. The core issue is Iceland’s alleged non-compliance with its obligations under the EEA Agreement, specifically regarding the timely implementation of EU directives. The outcome of this case could have implications for Iceland’s adherence to EU environmental regulations and its broader obligations under the EEA Agreement.
