Review of EU Legal Acts
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1048
This regulation establishes the framework for the Reform and Growth Facility scoreboard for the Western Balkans. The scoreboard is designed to measure and display progress in implementing Reform Agendas in beneficiary countries, utilizing key indicators such as the fulfilment of steps and disbursement of financial support. This scoreboard is publicly accessible online and updated twice a year to ensure transparency in the Facility’s implementation.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003
This regulation specifies the data required to identify Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives, specifically OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps, for transparency purposes under MiFIR (Regulation (EU) No 600/2014). It mandates the use of identifying reference data, including the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI), from 1 September 2026. The regulation details specific data elements for OTC interest rate swaps, covering asset class, instrument type, underlying asset type, and various business terms for different reference rates.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093
This regulation establishes a list of countries categorized as presenting either a low or high risk concerning the production of commodities associated with deforestation, aligning with EU Regulation 2023/1115. It aims to minimize the EU’s contribution to deforestation by categorizing countries based on their risk levels, which in turn determines the level of due diligence required for operators and traders dealing with specific commodities like cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood. The Annex lists countries categorized as “low risk” or “high risk”, directly impacting the due diligence obligations of operators and traders.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1072
This regulation updates the restricted zones related to African Swine Fever (ASF) in Germany, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia. It amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, and is based on the most recent epidemiological developments. The key provision involves the detailed lists of restricted zones (I, II, and III) specified in the Annex, which are crucial for monitoring movement of live pigs and pork products.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/975
This regulation grants Union authorization for the biocidal product family ‘Transfluthrin emanators UA BPF’, containing transfluthrin as the active substance. It is authorized for use as an insecticide, acaricide, and to control other arthropods. The Annex I outlines the terms and conditions of the authorization, including the requirement for the authorization holder to conduct a long-term storage stability test and submit the results to the Agency.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/956
This regulation registers ‘Sal de Rio Maior / Flor de Sal de Rio Maior’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. The product’s quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and all production steps take place in the defined geographical area.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/955
This regulation registers ‘Savolainen mustikkakukko’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union’s register. This means that only products that meet the specific criteria and are produced in the defined geographical area can be marketed under that name, protecting the product’s reputation and preventing misuse of the name.
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 and 13. The Annex specifies the conditions for the approval of BIT for each product type, including requirements for product assessment, instructions for use, precautions to be indicated on the label of treated articles, and conditions for placing treated articles on the market.
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). It focuses on ensuring Member States collect comparable and harmonized data on GVCs. The Annex provides the updated technical specifications of data requirements for the topic of Global Value Chains (GVC).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/930
This regulation grants Union authorisation for the biocidal product ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’, containing CMIT/MIT as the active substance. The Annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics, including administrative information, product composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorised uses, general directions for use, and other relevant information.
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. These include the limitations on its use to short-term preservation in specific industrial applications, the requirement for Member States to assess the continued need for DBNPA, and the restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles containing DBNPA.
Judgment on Failure to Transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (Netherlands)
The CJEU found the Kingdom of the Netherlands failed to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. The Court decided to impose a lump sum of EUR 10,000,000.
Judgment on Interpretation of Directive 2003/87/EC (ETS)
The CJEU upheld the General Court’s decision, finding that the Commission acted within its discretion in determining that iron ore pellets and sintered ore are not directly substitutable for the purpose of free allowance allocation. The judgment clarifies the scope of the term “substitutes” within the context of the ETS and the extent of the Commission’s discretion in setting benchmarks.
Judgment on Appeal by Trasta Komercbanka AS (ECB Decision)
The CJEU dismisses TKB’s appeal, upholding the General Court’s judgment. It clarifies the importance of the right to representation in administrative proceedings, proper notification of decisions to affected parties, and also clarifies the retroactive effect of decisions.
Judgment on Failure to Transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (Latvia)
The CJEU found that Latvia failed to transpose Directive 2019/1024 fully and communicate the necessary measures to the Commission by the deadline. The Court ordered Latvia to pay a lump sum of EUR 250,000.
Judgment on Interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU (Railway)
The CJEU clarified the roles of Member States, infrastructure managers, and regulatory bodies in setting charges and ensures transparency and non-discrimination in the process. The Court clarifies that the Commission has discretion in determining whether products are “directly substitutable”.
Decision No. 1/2024 Linking EU and Swiss ETS
This decision updates the technical and operational framework for linking the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) with Switzerland’s ETS. The updated Linking Technical Standards (LTS) and Common Operational Procedures (COP) define the technical requirements for the permanent link.
Order on Case E-27/24 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland)
Case E-27/24 is removed from the Court’s Register. This indicates that the case is closed and will not proceed further in this court, each party will be responsible for their own costs.
Action against Iceland for Non-Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/852
ESA alleges that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) of Directive (EU) 2018/852. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment on Interpretation of Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC)
The operative part of the judgment states that an insurance claim, as defined in Article 268(1)(g) of the Solvency II Directive, retains its precedence as per Article 275(1), even if the claim has been assigned to a third party through a legal transaction.
Judgment against Iceland for Non-Compliance with Regulation (EU) No 996/2010
The Court ruled that Iceland was in breach of its obligations and ordered it to bear the costs of the proceedings. This highlights the importance of having advance arrangements in place between safety investigation authorities and other involved entities and communicating these arrangements to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Action against Iceland for Non-Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/850
The ESA alleges that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing 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.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1048 of 28 March 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1449 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans by setting out the elements of the scoreboard for the Reform and Growth Facility
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1048 supplements Regulation (EU) 2024/1449 by detailing the elements of the scoreboard for the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans. The regulation specifies how progress in implementing the Reform Agendas of the beneficiaries will be measured and displayed. It ensures transparency and public access to information regarding the Facility’s implementation and the disbursement of funds.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 outlines the content of the Facility scoreboard, focusing on the progress in implementing Reform Agendas, measured by the fulfilment of steps and the disbursement of financial support. It also mandates the display of Reform Agendas, assessments, approved investments, and links to beneficiaries’ webpages with data on funding recipients. The scoreboard must be publicly available online and updated twice a year until the end of the Facility’s implementation. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the first regulation detailing the elements of the scoreboard.
The most important provisions for its use are in Article 1, which specifies the key performance indicators and information to be included in the scoreboard. This includes the percentage of fulfilled steps in the Reform Agendas, progress in disbursing financial support, and links to detailed data on funding recipients. This ensures that the implementation of the Reform and Growth Facility is transparent and that stakeholders can easily monitor progress.
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 effectively identify and distinguish these derivatives. The regulation mandates the use of this identifying reference data from 1 September 2026.
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 mandates the inclusion of the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) for both OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding 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, including business day adjustment convention, fixed and floating day count conventions, payment frequencies, fixing lag, fixing and payment 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 identifying reference data required for OTC interest rate swaps and OTC credit default swaps, as outlined in Article 1 and detailed in the Annex. The requirement to include the ISO 4914 Unique Product Identifier (UPI) alongside other reference data is also crucial. These provisions ensure that market participants and competent authorities can accurately identify and monitor these derivatives for transparency purposes, as mandated by Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with Article 3, point (a)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 establishes a list of countries categorized as presenting either a low or high risk concerning the production of commodities associated with deforestation, ensuring that products comply with EU Regulation 2023/1115. The regulation aims to minimize the EU’s contribution to deforestation and forest degradation by setting due diligence obligations for operators and traders dealing with cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood. It classifies countries based on their risk levels, which determines the level of scrutiny applied to commodities and products originating from those countries.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 specifies that the countries listed in the Annex are designated as either low or high risk. A standard risk level applies to all countries not explicitly listed. Article 2 states that the regulation will take effect three days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides the list of countries categorized as low risk or high risk based on the assessment under Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115.
The most important provision is the Annex, which lists countries categorized as “low risk” or “high risk”. This classification directly impacts the due diligence obligations of operators and traders. Those sourcing from low-risk countries are subject to simplified due diligence, while those dealing with products from high-risk countries face more stringent requirements. For example, Ukraine is listed as low risk country.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1072 of 22 May 2025 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special disease control measures for African swine fever
Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1072:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which outlines special disease control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The amendment involves updating the lists of restricted zones (I, II, and III) in various Member States (Germany, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia) based on the most recent epidemiological situation of ASF. Some areas are being added to restricted zones due to new outbreaks, while others are being removed or reclassified due to improvements in the disease situation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Article 1:** This article is the core of the regulation. It states that Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 is replaced by the text provided in the Annex to this new regulation. This means the entire list of restricted zones is updated.
* **Article 2:** This sets the entry into force, which is the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This ensures the changes are implemented quickly due to the urgent nature of the epidemiological situation.
* **Annex:** This is the most substantial part. It provides the new, complete list of restricted zones I, II, and III for each affected Member State. The lists are very detailed, often specifying regions, districts, and even specific municipalities or parts thereof.
**Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**
The regulation responds to the evolving ASF situation. It reflects:
* New outbreaks in wild porcine animals in Poland and Slovakia.
* An outbreak in kept porcine animals in Latvia.
* Improvements in the epidemiological situation in certain areas of Germany, Poland and Slovakia, allowing for the delisting or reclassification of zones.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Geographic Scope:** The detailed lists in the Annex are crucial. Anyone involved in the movement of live pigs or pork products needs to carefully consult these lists to determine if their activities are affected by the restrictions in place for the specified zones.
* **Restricted Zone Levels:** Understanding the different levels of restriction (Zones I, II, and III) is essential, as each zone likely has specific control measures that apply (although these measures are not detailed in this particular regulation, they are found in the overarching Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687).
* **Dynamic Nature:** The regulation acknowledges that the ASF situation is very dynamic. This implies that the restricted zones are subject to change, and stakeholders need to stay updated on the latest amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/975 of 16 May 2025 granting a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family Transfluthrin emanators UA BPF in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/975 grants a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family ‘Transfluthrin emanators UA BPF’. The product family, containing transfluthrin as the active substance, is authorised for use as an insecticide, acaricide, and to control other arthropods. The authorisation is valid from June 12, 2025, to May 31, 2035, and is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions outlined in the regulation.
The regulation consists of two articles and two annexes. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation to Henkel AG & Co. KGaA for the biocidal product family ‘Transfluthrin emanators UA BPF’, specifying the authorisation number and validity period. Article 2 states the date of entry into force of the regulation. Annex I outlines the terms and conditions of the authorisation, including the requirement for the authorisation holder to conduct a long-term storage stability test and submit the results to the Agency by September 12, 2025. Annex II provides a summary of the biocidal product characteristics, including administrative information, product family composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorised uses, general directions for use, and other relevant information.
The most important provisions of this act are those that define the terms and conditions of the authorisation, as well as the summary of product characteristics. Specifically, the requirement for a long-term storage stability test ensures the product’s efficacy and safety over its shelf life. The summary of product characteristics provides essential information for users, including instructions for use, risk mitigation measures, and first aid instructions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/956 of 22 May 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Sal de Rio Maior / Flor de Sal de Rio Maior (PDO) 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) 2025/956 registers ‘Sal de Rio Maior / Flor de Sal de Rio Maior’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. 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 absence of any opposition to the registration led to the enactment of this regulation.
The structure of the act is straightforward, containing a preamble that references the relevant regulations and the rationale for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the geographical indication ‘Sal de Rio Maior / Flor de Sal de Rio Maior’ (PDO). Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and ensures its direct applicability across all Member States. This regulation repeals Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants ‘Sal de Rio Maior / Flor de Sal de Rio Maior’ the status of a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). This means that the product’s quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and all production steps take place in the defined geographical area. This registration protects the name against misuse and imitation and ensures that consumers are receiving a product genuinely linked to the Rio Maior region.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/955 of 22 May 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Savolainen mustikkakukko (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) 2025/955 officially registers ‘Savolainen mustikkakukko’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union’s register. This registration is based on an application from Finland and follows the procedures outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for various products. The absence of any opposition to the registration led to the enactment of this regulation.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 formally enters the name ‘Savolainen mustikkakukko’ (PGI) into the Union register of geographical indications, as defined by Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and ensures that the regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation implements the provisions of the new Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, repealing and replacing the previous Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the name ‘Savolainen mustikkakukko’ as a PGI within the EU. This means that only products that meet the specific criteria and are produced in the defined geographical area can be marketed under that name, protecting the product’s reputation and preventing misuse of the name.
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) within the framework of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. It acknowledges the evaluation and opinions of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which concluded that BIT can be approved for these product types, subject to certain conditions. The regulation aims to ensure that biocidal products containing BIT meet the requirements for safety and efficacy, while also addressing potential risks to human health and the environment. Additionally, it sets conditions for the placing on the market of treated articles containing BIT.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that BIT is approved as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 6 and 13, subject to the conditions outlined in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex details the specific conditions for the approval of BIT for each product type, including requirements for product assessment, instructions for use, precautions to be indicated on the label of treated articles, and conditions for placing treated articles on the market.
The most important provisions of this act are in the Annex, which specifies the conditions under which BIT can be used in biocidal products of product types 6 and 13. For product type 6, the product assessment must pay particular attention to exposures, risks, and efficacy linked to any uses covered by an application for authorization, but not addressed in the Union-level assessment of the active substance. It also highlights the need for careful consideration of industrial, professional, and non-professional users, as well as the impact on sewage treatment plants, surface water, and groundwater. Similar conditions apply to product type 13, with a focus on industrial or professional users, surface water, sewage treatment plants, and sediment. Additionally, the regulation includes specific requirements for the labeling of treated articles and the concentration of BIT in mixtures intended for use by non-professionals to prevent skin sensitization.
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 comparable and harmonized data on GVCs every three years, as mandated by Regulation (EU) 2019/2152 on European business statistics. The changes affect the variables, measurement units, statistical population, classifications, data transmission deadlines, and the first reference period for data collection on global value chains.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/918 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force and the date of application. The Annex provides the updated technical specifications of data requirements for the topic of Global Value Chains (GVC). The main provisions outline the scope of the data collection, including specific variables related to business functions, global value chains, international sourcing, events impacting GVC arrangements, and the movement of business functions. It defines mandatory and voluntary variables, measurement units (absolute value), the statistical population (market producers of NACE Sections B to O with 50 or more employees), data transmission deadlines (T + 21 months), and the first reference period (2024-2026). It also details breakdowns for each variable by activity, business function, size class, type of goods/services, geographical area, group status, and other relevant factors.
The most important provisions for practical use are those detailing the specific data requirements and breakdowns for each variable. For example, the regulation specifies which NACE sections are included, the types of goods and services to be considered, the geographical areas for trade, and the criteria for categorizing enterprises by group status (independent, national, multinational). The regulation also clarifies that variables related to trade in goods and services only apply to enterprises reporting values higher than EUR 100,000. The 1% rule allows Member States with a small contribution to the EU total to be exempt from compiling certain variables. These detailed specifications are crucial for Member States to ensure consistent and comparable data collection on global value chains across the EU.
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 Union authorisation for the biocidal product ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’. This regulation confirms that ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’, containing CMIT/MIT as the active substance, meets the necessary conditions for use within the European Union according to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The authorisation is granted to MacDermid Hungary Kft, allowing them to make the product available on the market and use it across the Union. The regulation aligns the expiry date of this authorisation with that of the related reference biocidal product family.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation to MacDermid Hungary Kft for ‘Fernox Biocide AF10’ and specifies the authorisation number (EU-0032996-0000) and the period of validity, from 11 June 2025 until 31 October 2034. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The annex contains the summary of the biocidal 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 include the authorized uses specified in the Annex, which detail the product types (PT06, PT11, PT12, PT13) and the specific application rates and conditions for each use. It also includes critical hazard and precautionary statements that must be followed to ensure safe handling and application of the product. The general directions for use provide essential instructions and risk mitigation measures that users must adhere to, including the use of personal protective equipment and proper disposal methods.
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 for certain industrial applications where suitable alternatives are not available. The approval is valid for a limited period of five years, during which Member States must evaluate whether the conditions for its use continue to be met. The regulation also sets restrictions and conditions for treated articles containing DBNPA to ensure safety and equal treatment of products within the Union.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that DBNPA is approved as an active substance for product-type 6, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides specific conditions for the approval, including that product assessments must pay attention to exposures, risks, and efficacy, and that products may only be authorized in Member States where the condition set out in Article 5(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 is satisfied. It also limits the use of DBNPA to 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. Furthermore, it sets conditions for the placing on the market of treated articles containing DBNPA, limiting their use to the same categories and requiring specific labeling.
The most important provisions of this act are those that define the specific conditions under which DBNPA can be used. These include the limitations on its use to short-term preservation in specific industrial applications, the requirement for Member States to assess the continued need for DBNPA, and the restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles containing DBNPA. These provisions ensure that DBNPA is only used where necessary and that risks to human health and the environment are minimized.
Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 22 mai 2025.#Commission européenne contre Royaume des Pays-Bas.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Directive (UE) 2019/1024 – Données ouvertes et réutilisation des informations du secteur public – Transposition incomplète de cette directive et absence de communication immédiate des mesures de transposition – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire et d’une astreinte – Désistement partiel.#Affaire C-213/23.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a failure by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (the “Directive”) into national law by the deadline. The European Commission brought the action against the Netherlands for failing to adopt and communicate the necessary implementing measures. The Court found that the Netherlands had indeed failed to fulfill its obligations under the Directive and ordered the Netherlands to pay a lump sum of EUR 10,000,000.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **I. The Legal Framework:** This section outlines the relevant articles and recitals of Directive 2019/1024, as well as provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 and the Commission’s communication on financial sanctions. It explains the purpose and scope of the Directive, focusing on promoting open data and re-use of public sector information, including dynamic data and research data. It also highlights the importance of data protection and the need to balance openness with privacy.
* **II. Pre-litigation Procedure and Procedure Before the Court:** This section details the steps taken by the Commission before bringing the case to the CJEU, including sending a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion to the Netherlands. It also describes the course of the proceedings before the Court, including the Commission’s partial withdrawal of its action after the Netherlands finally communicated the transposition measures.
* **III. On the Action:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses the merits of the Commission’s claims.
* **A. On the Failure under Article 258 TFEU:** The Court finds that the Netherlands failed to transpose the Directive by the deadline and to communicate the implementing measures to the Commission, thus breaching its obligations under Article 17 of the Directive.
* **B. On the Request for a Lump Sum Payment:** The Court considers whether to impose a lump sum payment on the Netherlands under Article 260(3) TFEU. It discusses the criteria for determining the amount of the lump sum, including the gravity and duration of the infringement, and the Member State’s ability to pay. The Court also examines the arguments raised by the Netherlands in its defense, including mitigating circumstances and the impact of the infringement. Ultimately, the Court decides to impose a lump sum of EUR 10,000,000.
* **IV. On Costs:** The Court orders the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Commission.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* The finding that the Netherlands failed to transpose Directive 2019/1024 by the deadline.
* The order for the Netherlands to pay a lump sum of EUR 10,000,000.
* The detailed discussion of the criteria for determining the amount of the lump sum, including the gravity and duration of the infringement, and the Member State’s ability to pay.
* The Court’s rejection of most of the arguments raised by the Netherlands in its defense, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the complexity of balancing open data with data protection.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2025.Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB v European Commission.Appeal – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union – Free allocation of allowances – Article 10a(1) – Concept of ‘substitutes’ – National implementing measures – Article 11(1) – Lists of installations covered by Directive 2003/87 submitted to the European Commission by the Member States – Decision (EU) 2021/355 – Proposal of the Member State concerned to cover by a benchmark for sintered ore a sub-installation producing iron ore pellets – Rejection decision – Establishment of benchmarks by the Commission – General objective of incentivising the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – No obligation of result – Article 296 TFEU – Obligation to state reasons for decisions of the EU institutions.Case C-621/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2003/87/EC, which establishes a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the EU (the “ETS”). The case specifically concerns the free allocation of emission allowances to industrial installations and whether the European Commission correctly rejected a proposal from Sweden to classify iron ore pellets production under the benchmark for sintered ore. The Court upholds the General Court’s decision, finding that the Commission acted within its discretion in determining that iron ore pellets and sintered ore are not directly substitutable for the purpose of free allowance allocation. The judgment clarifies the scope of the term “substitutes” within the context of the ETS and the extent of the Commission’s discretion in setting benchmarks.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Sets out the context of the appeal, the judgment being appealed, and the decision at issue (Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355).
2. **Legal Context:** Summarizes the relevant articles of Directive 2003/87/EC, Directive 2009/29/EC, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331, and Decision 2011/278/EU, focusing on provisions related to free allocation of emission allowances, benchmarks, and the definition of “substitutes.”
3. **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the factual background, including the appellant’s (Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB) activities, the Swedish national implementation measures (NIMs) proposal, and the Commission’s rejection of that proposal.
4. **The Procedure Before the General Court and the Judgment Under Appeal:** Outlines the proceedings before the General Court and summarizes the General Court’s judgment dismissing the appellant’s action.
5. **Forms of Order Sought by the Parties to the Appeal:** States the orders sought by the appellant and the Commission.
6. **The Appeal:** Details the five grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and the Court’s analysis and findings on each ground.
7. **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs between the parties.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable here, as this is a court judgment interpreting existing legislation rather than a new legislative act.
The most important provisions for its use are:
* **Interpretation of “Substitutes” (Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC):** The Court clarifies that the Commission has discretion in determining whether products are “directly substitutable” for the purpose of setting benchmarks for free allocation of emission allowances. The Court upholds the General Court’s finding that the Commission was justified in considering that iron ore pellets and sintered ore are not directly substitutable, based on differences in their characteristics, composition, and production processes.
* **Commission’s Discretion in Setting Benchmarks:** The judgment reinforces the Commission’s broad discretion in determining benchmarks for individual sectors or subsectors under Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC. The Court emphasizes that the legality of a measure adopted in this area can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate.
* **Balancing Environmental and Economic Objectives:** The Court acknowledges that while the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a primary objective of Directive 2003/87/EC, this objective must be balanced with other considerations, such as cost-effectiveness, economic efficiency, and the prevention of carbon leakage. The Commission is not obligated to prioritize emission reductions above all other factors when setting benchmarks.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2025.Trasta Komercbanka AS v European Central Bank.Appeal – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the European Central Bank (ECB) – Article 24 – Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation for access to the activities of a credit institution – Administrative review procedure – Action for annulment.Case C-90/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal by Trasta Komercbanka AS (TKB), a Latvian credit institution, against a decision by the European Central Bank (ECB) to withdraw its authorization to operate as a credit institution. The case revolves around the procedural and substantive legality of the ECB’s decision, particularly concerning the right to be heard, the right to representation, and the retroactive effect of decisions made following an administrative review process. The CJEU ultimately dismisses TKB’s appeal, upholding the General Court’s judgment.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the context of the case, including the ECB’s decision to withdraw TKB’s authorization, the administrative review process, and the prior legal proceedings.
2. **Legal Context:** It cites relevant articles from the SSM Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013), Regulation (EU) No 468/2014, and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which form the legal basis for the ECB’s supervisory powers and the administrative review process.
3. **The Action Before the General Court and the Judgment Under Appeal:** It summarizes the proceedings before the General Court, which initially dismissed TKB’s action for annulment of the ECB’s decision.
4. **Forms of Order Sought by the Parties Before the Court of Justice:** It outlines the requests made by TKB and the ECB to the CJEU.
5. **The Appeal:** It details the three grounds of appeal raised by TKB: breach of the right to effective representation, failure to comply with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and infringement of Article 24(7) of the SSM Regulation.
6. **The Court’s Analysis:** The CJEU addresses each ground of appeal, examining the arguments presented by TKB and the ECB. It considers issues such as the admissibility of evidence, the right to be heard, the right to representation, and the retroactive effect of the ECB’s decisions.
7. **Costs:** It determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:
* **Right to Representation:** The judgment clarifies the importance of the right to representation in administrative proceedings, particularly concerning decisions that significantly affect individuals or entities.
* **Notification of Decisions:** The judgment underscores the importance of proper notification of decisions to affected parties, ensuring they have the opportunity to understand and challenge the decision.
* **Retroactive Effect of Decisions:** The judgment clarifies that the abrogation of an act of an EU institution does not amount to recognition of its illegality and takes effect ex nunc, unlike a judgment annulling an act, by virtue of which the act annulled is removed retroactively from the EU legal order and is deemed never to have existed. In that regard, the fact that that abrogation was followed by the replacement of the initial act by a new act cannot give the latter retroactive effect.
* **Grounds for Appeal:** The judgment emphasizes the need for appellants to clearly identify the contested elements of the judgment and the legal arguments supporting the appeal.
Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 22 mai 2025.#Commission européenne contre République de Lettonie.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Directive (UE) 2019/1024 – Données ouvertes et réutilisation des informations du secteur public – Transposition incomplète de cette directive et absence de communication des mesures de transposition – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire et d’une astreinte.#Affaire C-238/23.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a failure by Latvia to properly transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information into its national law. The European Commission brought the case against Latvia, arguing that Latvia had not fully implemented the Directive by the deadline and had failed to communicate the necessary transposition measures. The Court agreed with the Commission, finding Latvia in breach of its obligations.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** The Commission requested the Court to declare that Latvia failed to adopt and publish all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1024, or at least failed to communicate these provisions to the Commission. The Commission also requested that Latvia be ordered to pay a lump sum and a daily penalty payment.
2. **Legal Framework:** The judgment outlines the key articles and recitals of Directive 2019/1024, focusing on aspects such as the scope of the directive, definitions (e.g., “document,” “dynamic data,” “research data”), principles of charging for re-use, transparency requirements, and the handling of exclusive agreements. It also references the implementing regulation (EU) 2023/138, which lists specific high-value datasets.
3. **Pre-litigation Procedure and Procedure Before the Court:** This section details the exchange between the Commission and Latvia, including the Commission’s initial letter of formal notice, Latvia’s responses, and the Commission’s reasoned opinion. It highlights the timeline of communications and the points of contention.
4. **The Action:**
* **Subject Matter of the Action:** Latvia argued that the Commission expanded the scope of the case by raising issues in its application that were not initially raised in the reasoned opinion. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Commission was merely elaborating on the initial claim of incomplete transposition.
* **Failure Under Article 258 TFEU:** The Court found that Latvia had indeed failed to transpose the Directive fully and communicate the necessary measures to the Commission by the deadline.
* **Claims Under Article 260(3) TFEU:** The Commission sought a lump sum payment and a daily penalty payment from Latvia for its failure to transpose the Directive. The Court ordered Latvia to pay a lump sum of EUR 250,000.
The main provisions of the act that are most important for its use are:
* **Article 17:** This article stipulates the deadline for member states to transpose the Directive into national law, which was **July 17, 2021**. It also requires member states to communicate the texts of these provisions to the Commission immediately.
* **Article 1:** This article defines the scope of the Directive, outlining that it applies to the re-use of existing documents held by public sector bodies and public undertakings, as well as research data.
* **Article 5:** This article concerns available formats for data, including the provision of dynamic data via APIs and bulk downloads.
* **Article 6:** This article establishes pricing principles, generally setting the cost of re-use of documents at zero, with some exceptions for marginal costs.
* **Article 14:** This article empowers the Commission to adopt implementing acts listing specific high-value datasets and setting out the arrangements for their publication and re-use.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2025.ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG and WESTbahn Management GmbH v Schienen-Control Kommission.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rail transport – Directive 2012/34/EU – Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure – Establishing, determining and collecting charges – Article 29 – Exceptions to charging principles – Article 32 – Mark-ups – Modalities for calculation and publication – Article 56 – Functions of the regulatory body – Authorisation procedure for mark-ups, provided for by national law – Conditions.Case C-538/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU, which establishes a single European railway area. The case concerns a dispute in Austria about the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, specifically the setting and authorization of “mark-ups” on those charges. The CJEU clarifies the roles of Member States, infrastructure managers, and regulatory bodies in setting these charges and ensures transparency and non-discrimination in the process.
The judgment addresses five key questions raised by the Austrian court. These questions revolve around the interpretation of specific articles within Directive 2012/34/EU, particularly Article 32 concerning exceptions to charging principles and Article 56 regarding the functions of the regulatory body. The structure of the judgment involves a detailed analysis of each question, referencing relevant articles and recitals of the Directive, as well as previous case law. The CJEU clarifies the division of powers between Member States, infrastructure managers, and regulatory bodies in the context of railway infrastructure charges. It emphasizes the need for transparency, non-discrimination, and management independence in the charging process.
The main provisions clarified by the CJEU are:
1. Member States can have an authorization procedure for mark-ups, but it must respect the infrastructure manager’s independence and not hinder the regulatory body’s functions.
2. Network statements must specify mark-ups separately from direct costs.
3. Changes only to the amount of mark-ups are not considered modifications of essential elements of the charging system.
4. Regulatory bodies are bound by the mark-ups published in the network statement, but can request changes to remedy incompatibilities with the Directive.
5. Member States cannot set overall revenue targets for infrastructure managers when establishing mark-ups, and State subsidies must be considered when calculating total costs.
Decision No 1/2024 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems of 4 December 2024 as regards the amendment of Annex II to the Agreement and of the Common Operational Procedures and the Linking Technical Standards [2025/908]
Here’s a breakdown of the decision regarding the linking of the EU and Swiss greenhouse gas emissions trading systems:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This decision (Decision No. 1/2024) updates the technical and operational framework for linking the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) with Switzerland’s ETS. It aims to establish a permanent, more efficient, and secure connection between the two systems’ registries. This will allow for seamless trading of emission allowances between the EU and Switzerland, as if they were a single market, and replaces the previous provisional solution with a permanent one. The decision revises the technical standards and operational procedures to reflect technological advancements and ensure the smooth functioning of the linked systems.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The decision is structured around amending key elements of the original agreement:
* **Article 1:** This article is the core of the decision, replacing Annex II of the original agreement with a new text (Annex I of this decision). It also replaces the Common Operational Procedures (COP) and Linking Technical Standards (LTS) with updated versions (Annex II and Annex III respectively).
* **Annex I:** Replaces the old Annex II of the Agreement. It outlines the updated Linking Technical Standards (LTS). These standards specify the technical requirements for the permanent link between the EU and Swiss registries, including communication architecture, data transfer security, functions, data logging, and operational arrangements.
* **Annex II:** Sets out the updated Common Operational Procedures (COP). These procedures detail how the EU and Swiss registry administrators will handle various operational aspects of the linked systems, such as incident management, problem resolution, change management, and security protocols.
* **Annex III:** Presents the updated Linking Technical Standards (LTS). These standards provide detailed technical specifications for establishing a robust and secure connection between the EU and Swiss transaction logs, covering aspects like communication protocols, data encryption, and security measures.
**Key changes compared to previous versions:**
* **Shift to a Permanent Link:** The decision formalizes the transition from a provisional linking solution to a permanent one, aiming for greater efficiency and integration.
* **Enhanced Security:** The updated LTS places a strong emphasis on security, with detailed requirements for data encryption, intrusion detection, and incident response.
* **Streamlined Procedures:** The revised COP aims to streamline operational processes, making it easier for administrators to manage the linked systems.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Linking Technical Standards (LTS):** These standards (Annex I and Annex III) are crucial for IT professionals and administrators responsible for maintaining the technical infrastructure of the linked systems. They define the specific protocols, security measures, and communication architectures that must be implemented.
* **Common Operational Procedures (COP):** The COP (Annex II) is essential for registry administrators and support teams who manage the day-to-day operations of the linked systems. It outlines the procedures for handling incidents, resolving problems, managing changes, and ensuring the security of the systems.
* **Security Provisions:** The decision places a significant emphasis on security, requiring administrators to implement robust security measures and regularly test their systems for vulnerabilities. This is critical for maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the linked systems.
* **Communication Protocols:** The decision specifies the communication protocols that must be used for exchanging data between the EU and Swiss registries. This is important for ensuring that the systems can communicate effectively and securely.
* **Data Logging Requirements:** The decision outlines the data logging requirements for both the EU and Swiss registries. This is important for auditing and troubleshooting purposes.
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 simply, containing two points.
* **Point 1:** This point states the core decision: Case E-27/24 is removed from the Court’s Register. This indicates that the case is closed and will not proceed further in this court.
* **Point 2:** This point addresses the costs associated with the proceedings, stipulating that each party (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland) will be responsible for their own costs.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The key takeaway from this order is that the legal action against Iceland for failing to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1406 has been withdrawn from the court’s consideration. This could be because Iceland has since complied, or because the EFTA Surveillance Authority has withdrawn its application for other reasons. The order does not provide the reasons for the removal. The fact that each party bears its own costs suggests a possible settlement or a change in circumstances that made further litigation unnecessary.
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 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 is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation 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 specific articles of Directive (EU) 2018/852 related to packaging and packaging waste. The timeline includes ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Iceland on March 15, 2022, followed by a reasoned opinion on May 31, 2022, which Iceland did not respond to within the given deadline. Iceland notified ESA on June 7, 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 by ESA in 2023 and 2024 about the implementation status were met with assurances from Iceland that implementation was forthcoming, but as of the date of the application (April 9, 2025), ESA had not received confirmation or evidence that these articles had been implemented.
The main point of contention is Iceland’s failure to implement Articles 1(2), 1(5), and 1(17) of Directive (EU) 2018/852 within the stipulated time. These articles are crucial because they relate to amendments in the regulations concerning packaging and packaging waste, which are essential for environmental compliance within the EEA. The ESA’s decision to bring the case before the EFTA Court underscores the importance of adhering to the agreed-upon timelines for implementing EU directives into national law.
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 regarding the interpretation of the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), specifically concerning the privileged status of insurance claims in national insolvency proceedings. The central question is whether an insurance claim loses its privileged status under Articles 268(1)(g) and 275 of the Directive if it has been assigned to a third party through a legal transaction.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses a request from the Princely Court of Appeal of Liechtenstein concerning the interpretation of specific articles within the Solvency II Directive. The core issue revolves around the precedence of insurance claims during insolvency proceedings of an insurance company. Article 268(1)(g) of the Directive concerns insurance claims, while Article 275(1) dictates the precedence to be given to these claims. The judgment clarifies whether the assignment of an insurance claim to a third party affects its privileged status.
**Key Provisions and Implications:**
The operative part of the judgment states that an insurance claim, as defined in Article 268(1)(g) of the Solvency II Directive, retains its precedence as per Article 275(1), even if the claim has been assigned to a third party through a legal transaction. This means that the assignment of a claim does not diminish its privileged status in insolvency proceedings. This clarification is crucial for third parties who acquire insurance claims, as it ensures their claims maintain the same priority as if they were held by the original policyholder.
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 against Iceland for failing to fulfill its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 regarding the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. Specifically, Iceland failed to establish and communicate advance arrangements between its safety investigation authorities and other relevant authorities, as required by Article 12(3) of the Regulation. The Court ruled that Iceland was in breach of its obligations and ordered it to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 12(3) of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010). The operative part of the judgment contains two points: 1) a declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations, and 2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is an original judgment.
The most important provision for practical use is the declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 12(3) of Regulation (EU) No 996/2010. This highlights the importance of having advance arrangements in place between safety investigation authorities and other involved entities and communicating these arrangements to the EFTA Surveillance Authority. This judgment serves as a reminder to EFTA states of their obligations under EU regulations incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
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 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 ESA is asking the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its obligations and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.
The document details the timeline of correspondence between the ESA and Iceland regarding the implementation of the Directive. It starts with a letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Iceland on August 22, 2022, followed by a reasoned opinion on February 8, 2023, which gave Iceland two months to comply. Iceland notified the ESA on June 7, 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. Despite several inquiries from the ESA, Iceland has not provided confirmation that these specific articles have been fully implemented.
The core issue is Iceland’s delay in implementing specific articles of Directive (EU) 2018/850 related to the landfill of waste. The ESA’s case rests on the fact that Iceland has not provided sufficient evidence or notification of the implementation of Articles 1(2), 1(3), and 1(4)(b) of the Directive, despite repeated inquiries and a reasoned opinion. The EFTA Court will now assess whether Iceland has indeed failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement.
