Review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1131
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 691/2011, integrating more detailed data on climate change mitigation investments across economic sectors. It introduces the Classification of Environmental Purposes (CEP) to standardize the categorization of environmental activities. Annexes IV, V, and VIII of Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 are modified. The key provisions include reporting gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) for climate change mitigation activities by corporations, government, and households, and using the standardized CEP classification for consistent environmental data reporting across Member States.
Review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1130
This regulation corrects a linguistic error in the Dutch language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 concerning unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The error relates to a requirement for class C6 unmanned aircraft systems. The correction ensures the Dutch version accurately reflects the intended meaning of the provision.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1144
This regulation updates the EU Air Safety List by amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006. All air carriers certified by Suriname and Tanzania are banned from operating within the EU (added to Annex A). Aviation safety situations in Armenia, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, and Libya were reviewed but no changes were made. The list of Russian air carriers banned from operating within the EU is updated.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1132
This regulation amends Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988, adjusting tariff rate quotas for products originating in Ukraine for 2025. Adjustments affect quantities of specific agricultural products that can be imported at reduced or zero tariff rates. Annexes II, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 are modified. Annex I and a new Annex VI are added to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988, which specifies conversion factors for products in the eggs sector.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1102
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 by including five chemical-unlike biological substances for which no maximum residue limits (MRLs) are required in foodstuffs of animal origin. These substances are bovine casein hydrolysate, probiotic components, recombinant bovine IL-8, stem cells, and Varroa destructor calmodulin gene-specific double-stranded interfering RNA.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1103
This regulation clarifies application requirements for a “no MRL required” classification for chemical-unlike biological substances by amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12. It specifies the necessary documentation for requests submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), referencing Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/782.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1105
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, setting specific maximum residue limits (MRLs) for ketoprofen in food products from animals. MRLs are set for ruminants, porcine animals, Equidae, and poultry tissues. The regulation restricts the use of ketoprofen in poultry producing eggs for human consumption.
Review of Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1101
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2018/782, refining the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) assessment of maximum residue limits (MRLs) for chemical-unlike biological substances. EMA can classify certain substances, particularly those that are normal constituents of food and pose no public health risk, as “no MRL required.”
Review of Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1112
This regulation amends Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, updating the Union list of flavourings by including Naringenin and 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one. The regulation specifies maximum permitted levels for Naringenin in various food categories and allows 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one for use only in chewing gum.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev v. Council
The General Court annulled the Council’s decision to maintain Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev on the list of sanctioned individuals. The Court found that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued restrictions, especially given his detention and removal from his position at Motor Sich. The claim for damages was rejected.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on EZ v. European Commission
The General Court dismissed EZ’s claims for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew his fixed-term contract. The Court emphasized contract agents with fixed-term contracts have no inherent right to contract renewal.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Baltic International Bank SE v European Central Bank
The General Court upheld the ECB’s decision to withdraw Baltic International Bank SE’s license due to AML/CTF law violations. It confirmed the ECB’s authority to withdraw a banking license based on national law violations.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on CV v European Commission
The General Court dismissed CV’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision to refuse granting a household allowance following his divorce. The General Court clarified that after a divorce, the ex-spouse is no longer considered a family member for the purposes of this allowance, and the requirement of co-residence must be met.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH v Decathlon
The General Court dismissed Delta-Sport’s claims, upholding the validity of Decathlon’s diving mask design. The General Court emphasized that for a design to be invalidated all its features must be exclusively dictated by technical function.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on ABLV Bank AS v European Central Bank
The General Court upheld the ECB’s decision to partially refuse access to documents related to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announcement, confirming the bank must indicate the precision required in an application for access to documents.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Toya Development sp. z o.o. sp. k. v EUIPO
The General Court dismissed Toya Development’s action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision. The General Court highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging bad faith, clarifying that the existence of a prior commercial relationship between the parties does not automatically imply bad faith.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on German Khan v Council of the European Union
The General Court dismissed Khan’s appeal, upholding the Council’s decisions to maintain German Khan’s name on the list of sanctioned individuals. The General Court has provided insight into the interpretation of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, particularly regarding the concept of “influential businesspersons.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
The General Court dismissed Delta-Sport’s claims regarding the validity of a registered Community design for a diving mask held by Decathlon. The General Court reemphasized that aesthetic considerations can also play a role in technical design.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Alfa-Bank JSC v Council
The General Court dismissed the action and upheld the EU’s sanctions against Alfa-Bank. The General Court has provided detailed interpretation of the criteria used to impose sanctions.
Review of Judgment of the General Court on Sven Benschop v Seven Bell Group
The General Court annulls the decision of the Board of Appeal, finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The General Court reemphasized that the global assessment of likelihood of confusion requires considering all relevant factors and that the Board of Appeal gave excessive weight to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
Review of Decision No. 2/2024 of the EU-Armenia Sub-Committee on Geographical Indications
This decision updates Annex X to the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Armenia. The decision updates the list of protected geographical indications for products from both the EU and Armenia.
Review of EFTA Surveillance Authority on Free Movement of Goods
It concerns the incorporation of this regulation into the EEA Agreement and the recognition of third countries as having equivalent systems for organic production.The EEA EFTA States (Iceland and Norway) have made national decisions regarding the recognition of equivalence of the third countries.
Review of EFTA Surveillance Authority on State Aid Scheme
The decision outlines the framework under which aid will be granted rather than a specific instance of aid.The scheme is designed to support media pluralism and journalistic quality in Liechtenstein.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1131 of 26 March 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards investments on climate change mitigation and introducing the classification of environmental purposes
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1131 amends Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 to enhance the European environmental economic accounts. The main goal is to include detailed data on investments related to climate change mitigation across various economic sectors. The regulation also introduces the Classification of Environmental Purposes (CEP) to standardize the categorization of environmental activities.
The regulation modifies Annexes IV, V, and VIII of Regulation (EU) No 691/2011. These changes include updating the classification of environmental purposes (CEP) used for reporting environmental protection expenditures, detailing characteristics for statistics on the environmental goods and services sector, and specifying data reporting for environmental subsidies and similar transfers. The amendments focus on incorporating climate change mitigation activities and aligning with the United Nations Statistical Commission’s endorsement of the CEP.
For practical use, the most important provisions are the inclusion of climate change mitigation investments in environmental accounts and the introduction of the Classification of Environmental Purposes (CEP). Specifically, the requirement to report gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) for climate change mitigation activities, broken down by corporations, government, and households, will provide more granular data for policy and investment decisions. The standardized CEP classification ensures consistent reporting and comparison of environmental data across Member States.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1130 of 18 March 2025 correcting the Dutch language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1130 addresses an error found in the Dutch language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945, which concerns unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and operators from third countries. The error specifically relates to a requirement for class C6 unmanned aircraft systems, potentially altering the provision’s meaning. This regulation aims to correct this error in the Dutch version to ensure accurate implementation.
The structure of the regulation is very simple. It contains a preamble that explains the reason for the correction, followed by two articles. Article 1 contains the correction itself, but states that it does not concern the English language version. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force, which is the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The regulation does not introduce new provisions or change existing ones, except for rectifying the identified error in the Dutch language version of the original regulation.
The most important aspect of this regulation is its focus on linguistic accuracy. For those working with the Dutch language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945, it is crucial to take note of this correction to ensure compliance and avoid misinterpretation of the requirements for class C6 unmanned aircraft systems. The correction ensures the Dutch version aligns with the intended meaning of the provision.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1144 of 3 June 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 as regards the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the Union
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1144, which amends Regulation (EC) No 474/2006, regarding the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the European Union. The regulation updates the EU Air Safety List based on new information received from Member States, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), third countries, and international organizations. The Commission has provided the concerned air carriers with the opportunity to consult relevant documentation, submit comments, and make presentations.
The regulation’s structure involves replacing Annex A (list of air carriers banned from operating within the EU) and Annex B (list of air carriers subject to operational restrictions within the EU) of Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 with updated lists.
The key changes include:
– **Suriname and Tanzania**: All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Suriname and Tanzania are added to Annex A, meaning they are banned from operating within the EU.
– **Other countries**: The regulation reviews the aviation safety situations in Armenia, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Libya, but decides not to change the status of air carriers from these countries at this time.
– **Russia**: The list of air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Russia which are banned from operating within the EU is updated.
The most important provision is the immediate update to the lists of banned or restricted air carriers, which directly impacts the operations of airlines from Suriname and Tanzania, as well as passengers planning to use these airlines. Member States are expected to continue verifying the compliance of air carriers from countries under review through ramp inspections.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1132 of 3 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 as regards tariff rate quotas for products originating in Ukraine in 2025
****
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1132, which amends Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 regarding tariff rate quotas for products originating in Ukraine in 2025. The regulation adjusts the quantities of certain agricultural products that can be imported from Ukraine into the EU at reduced or zero tariff rates. These adjustments are necessary because temporary trade liberalization measures are expiring, and the original tariff rate quotas under the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine are being reinstated, but only for a portion of the year.
The regulation modifies Annexes II, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, changing the tariff quota period for specific order numbers to reflect the period from January 1 to December 31, except for the period from June 6 to December 31, 2025. During this latter period, these tariff rate quotas will be administered in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988. Additionally, Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 is amended to add tables for new tariff quotas in the sectors of cereals, beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat, eggs, and poultry meat, applicable only from June 6 to December 31, 2025. It also modifies the quantities for existing tariff quotas to reflect the same period. Finally, a new Annex VI is added to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988, which specifies conversion factors for products in the eggs sector.
The most important provisions of this act are those specifying the adjusted quantities for various agricultural products and the periods during which these adjustments are in effect. For example, the quantity of common wheat flour that can be imported under order number 09.6734 is set at 7/12 of 1,000,000,000 kg for the period from June 6 to December 31, 2025. Similarly, the regulation introduces new order numbers for products like beef, milk, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, with specific quantities and sub-periods. For the egg sector, the introduction of conversion factors is also a key element, ensuring accurate accounting for different types of egg products.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1102 of 3 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as regards chemical-unlike biological substances
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1102 amends Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 by including five chemical-unlike biological substances for which no maximum residue limits (MRLs) are required in foodstuffs of animal origin. These substances include bovine casein hydrolysate, probiotic components, recombinant bovine IL-8, stem cells, and Varroa destructor calmodulin gene-specific double-stranded interfering RNA. The regulation is based on scientific advice from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which concluded that these substances do not pose a risk to public health.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter 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 lists the five chemical-unlike biological substances, specifying that no MRL is required for them in certain animal species, along with other provisions such as intended use.
The most important provision of this act is the inclusion of the five chemical-unlike biological substances in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 with a classification of “No MRL required”. This means that these substances, when used according to the specified conditions (e.g., intramammary or intrauterine use), do not require the establishment of maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. This simplifies the regulatory requirements for their use in veterinary medicine within the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1103 of 3 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12 as regards the requirements for applications and requests for the establishment of a no MRL required classification for chemical-unlike biological substances
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1103 focuses on clarifying the requirements for applications seeking a “no MRL required” classification for chemical-unlike biological substances. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12 to specify the necessary documentation for such requests submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The regulation aims to provide clarity on the data needed for EMA to assess whether a substance qualifies for the “no MRL required” classification.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 amends Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12 by adding a subparagraph that specifies the particulars and documents required for applications seeking a “no MRL required” classification for chemical-unlike biological substances. It explicitly refers to section I.7, first paragraph, points (a) to (e), of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/782. 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 it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The most important provision of this regulation is the amendment to Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12. This amendment directly impacts applicants seeking a “no MRL required” classification for chemical-unlike biological substances, as it specifies the exact information they must provide in their applications. By referencing specific points in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/782, the regulation ensures that applications are complete and aligned with EMA’s assessment criteria.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1105 of 3 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as regards the classification of the substance ketoprofen with respect to its maximum residue limit in foodstuffs of animal origin
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1105 amends Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, focusing on the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for the anti-inflammatory substance ketoprofen in food products derived from animals. The regulation updates the classification of ketoprofen, setting specific MRLs for various animal species and tissues to ensure food safety.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex replaces the existing entry for ketoprofen in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, specifying MRLs for ketoprofen in all ruminants (including bovine), porcine, Equidae, and poultry. It details the marker residue, animal species, MRL values, target tissues, and other provisions, such as restrictions on use in poultry producing eggs for human consumption. Compared to the previous version, this regulation introduces specific MRLs for ketoprofen in different tissues of ruminants, porcine animals, and Equidae, where previously a “no MRL required” classification was in place.
The most important provisions of this regulation are the establishment of specific MRLs for ketoprofen in various animal tissues. For all ruminants, porcine, and Equidae, the MRLs are set at 50 μg/kg for muscle, 20 μg/kg for fat, 20 μg/kg for liver, 50 μg/kg for kidney, and 20 μg/kg for milk. For poultry, the MRLs are 10 μg/kg for muscle, 30 μg/kg for skin and fat in natural proportion, 10 μg/kg for liver, and 10 μg/kg for kidney, with a specific restriction against use in animals producing eggs for human consumption. These MRLs are crucial for ensuring that the levels of ketoprofen in food products of animal origin do not pose a risk to human health, and they provide clear guidelines for the use of ketoprofen in veterinary medicine.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1101 of 3 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/782 concerning the assessment by the European Medicines Agency of maximum residue limits for chemical-unlike biological substances
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1101 amends Regulation (EU) 2018/782 regarding the assessment of maximum residue limits (MRLs) for chemical-unlike biological substances by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The amendment aims to refine the process by which the EMA determines whether a full MRL evaluation is needed for these substances. It allows the EMA to classify certain chemical-unlike biological substances, particularly those that are normal constituents of food and pose no public health risk, as “no MRL required.”
The regulation modifies Section I.7 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2018/782. Specifically, it replaces the second paragraph of that section. The new wording mandates that the EMA evaluates information on chemical-unlike biological substances according to its published guidance to determine if a “no MRL required” classification, as per Article 14(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009, is appropriate.
The key provision of this regulation is the amendment to Section I.7 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2018/782. This change directs the EMA to actively consider whether a “no MRL required” classification is suitable for chemical-unlike biological substances, streamlining the regulatory process for substances that do not pose a risk to public health. This could lead to a more efficient assessment process and potentially reduce the number of substances requiring full MRL evaluations.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1112 of 4 June 2025 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the inclusion of Naringenin and 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one in the Union list of flavourings
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1112 amends Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, which concerns flavourings used in food. The key purpose of this regulation is to update the Union list of flavourings by including two new substances: Naringenin and 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one. This inclusion follows evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which concluded that the use of these substances as flavourings does not raise safety concerns under specific conditions.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I, Part A, to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to the new regulation. Article 2 indicates 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 details the specific amendments to Annex I, Part A, Section 2, Table 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008, by adding the two new flavouring substances along with their respective Flavouring numbers (FL No), Chemical names, CAS numbers and usage conditions.
The most important provisions for practical use are the specific conditions of use for each new flavouring substance. For Naringenin (FL No 16.132), the regulation specifies maximum permitted levels in various food categories, ranging from 200 mg/kg to 1000 mg/kg depending on the food type. For 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one (FL No 16.134), the regulation allows its use only in the “Chewing gum” food category (5.3) with a maximum level of 100 mg/kg. These specific conditions are crucial for food manufacturers to ensure compliance with EU law when using these flavourings in their products.
Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques – Maintien du nom du requérant sur la liste – Erreur d’appréciation – Responsabilité non contractuelle – Atteinte à la réputation et à la présomption d’innocence – Préjudice moral – Réalité du dommage.#Affaire T-297/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev, an Ukrainian citizen. The case concerns the Council of the European Union’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. Mr. Boguslayev sought the annulment of the Council’s decision and compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of these measures.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** Describes the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the EU concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. It outlines previous decisions and regulations, including the initial listing of Mr. Boguslayev and subsequent amendments.
2. **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the claims of Mr. Boguslayev, who argues that the Council’s decision was flawed due to errors in assessment, violation of the right to effective judicial protection, failure to state reasons, violation of the principle of proportionality, and violation of fundamental rights. The Council defends its decision, asserting that it had sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Boguslayev on the list.
3. **Legal Analysis:**
* **Annulment Claim:** The Court focuses on the argument of errors in assessment. It reviews the evidence presented by the Council and assesses whether it sufficiently supports the reasons for maintaining Mr. Boguslayev on the list. The Court finds that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued listing, considering changes in Mr. Boguslayev’s situation (detention by Ukrainian authorities, removal from his position at Motor Sich).
* **Claim for Damages:** The Court examines Mr. Boguslayev’s claim for compensation for moral damages, specifically regarding harm to his reputation and the presumption of innocence. The Court acknowledges the potential for reputational damage but finds that Mr. Boguslayev did not provide sufficient evidence of actual damage suffered.
4. **Decision:** The Court annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list but rejects the claim for damages. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and those of Mr. Boguslayev.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* The Court annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list of sanctioned individuals, finding that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued restrictions, especially considering his detention and removal from his position at Motor Sich.
* The Court rejects Mr. Boguslayev’s claim for damages, stating that he did not provide sufficient evidence of actual harm to his reputation or violation of the presumption of innocence.
* The judgment reinforces the importance of providing concrete and updated evidence when maintaining sanctions, especially when the circumstances of the sanctioned individual have changed.
: This act has direct implications for an Ukrainian citizen. The decision highlights the need for the Council to regularly review and update the factual basis for sanctions, particularly in light of changing circumstances.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#EZ contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Agents contractuels – Contrat à durée déterminée – Non-renouvellement – Rapport de fin de stage – Rapport d’évaluation – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Devoir de sollicitude – Règle de concordance – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-450/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between EZ, a contract agent, and the European Commission concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract. The court dismisses EZ’s claims for annulment of the non-renewal decision, his request for reinstatement, and his claims for damages.
The case revolves around EZ’s request to annul the Commission’s decision not to renew his contract, as well as the rejection of his subsequent complaint. EZ argues that the Commission made a manifest error in assessing his performance and violated its duty of care towards him. He seeks reinstatement or, failing that, compensation for material and moral damages.
The court’s decision is structured as follows:
* **Background of the Dispute:** This section details EZ’s employment history with the Commission, including his roles as a temporary agent and later as a contract agent. It outlines the timeline leading up to the non-renewal decision, including the end-of-probation assessment and EZ’s subsequent complaint.
* **Claims of the Parties:** This section summarizes the arguments made by EZ and the Commission. EZ seeks annulment of the non-renewal decision, reinstatement, or compensation. The Commission argues for the dismissal of EZ’s claims.
* **Legal Analysis:**
* **Subject of the Action:** The court clarifies that the action is directed solely against the non-renewal decision, as supplemented by the rejection of the complaint.
* **Substance:**
* **Claims for Annulment:** The court addresses EZ’s arguments for annulment, which are based on manifest error of assessment and violation of the duty of care.
* **Manifest Error of Assessment:** The court finds that the Commission did not commit a manifest error in assessing EZ’s performance. It emphasizes that EZ, as a contract agent with a fixed-term contract, has no inherent right to renewal. The court also notes that the Commission’s assessment was based on EZ’s performance during the relevant contract period.
* **Violation of the Duty of Care:** The court rejects EZ’s claim that the Commission violated its duty of care. It finds that the Commission adequately considered EZ’s interests and that the duty of care does not require the Commission to explore alternative job placements before deciding not to renew a contract.
* **Claims for Reinstatement:** The court dismisses EZ’s request for reinstatement, stating that the court cannot issue injunctions to EU institutions.
* **Claims for Damages:** The court rejects EZ’s claims for material and moral damages, as these claims are closely linked to the annulment claims, which were dismissed.
* **Costs:** The court orders EZ to bear his own costs and those of the Commission.
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
* Contract agents with fixed-term contracts have no inherent right to contract renewal.
* The EU institutions have broad discretion in deciding whether to renew contracts.
* The court’s review of such decisions is limited to verifying the absence of manifest error or abuse of power.
* The duty of care requires the Commission to consider the interests of the agent but does not mandate exploring alternative job placements.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#Baltic International Bank, SE contre Banque centrale européenne.#Politique économique et monétaire – Surveillance prudentielle des établissements de crédit – Missions spécifiques de surveillance confiées à la BCE – Décision de retrait de l’agrément d’un établissement de crédit – Violation de la législation nationale en matière de lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme – Article 83, paragraphe 2, du règlement (UE) no 468/2014 et article 4, paragraphe 3, du règlement (UE) no 1024/2013 – Étendue de l’examen par la BCE des circonstances justifiant le retrait – Compétence des autorités compétentes nationales et de la BCE au sein du mécanisme de surveillance unique (MSU) – Conditions du retrait – Obligation de motivation – Droit à une bonne administration.#Affaire T-551/23.
Here is a description of the provisions of the act.
This judgment concerns a case brought by Baltic International Bank SE against the European Central Bank (ECB) regarding the ECB’s decision to withdraw the bank’s license due to violations of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) laws. The court dismisses the bank’s appeal, upholding the ECB’s decision. The judgment clarifies the division of responsibilities between national authorities and the ECB within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and confirms the ECB’s competence to withdraw licenses based on national law violations.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including previous sanctions imposed on the bank by the Latvian Financial and Capital Market Commission (CMFC) and the CMFC’s proposal to the ECB to withdraw the bank’s license.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Baltic International Bank SE and the ECB.
* **Law:** Details the court’s legal reasoning, divided into sections on the admissibility of the action and the merits of the case.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Admissibility:** The court first addresses the admissibility of the action, focusing on whether the bank’s lawyers had a valid mandate to represent it, given the bank’s liquidation. The court concludes that the lawyers’ mandate is valid, invoking the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
* **Merits:** The court then examines the bank’s four pleas for annulment of the ECB’s decision:
1. **Error of Assessment:** The bank argues that the ECB failed to recognize that the CMFC had not properly established criteria for serious AML/CTF violations. The court rejects this, stating that the ECB made its own assessment based on various sources, not solely relying on the CMFC’s findings.
2. **Violation of Duty to Examine:** The bank claims the ECB did not conduct its own examination but relied on the CMFC’s assessment. The court rejects this, noting the ECB considered multiple sources, including CMFC decisions and inspection reports.
3. **Breach of Duty to State Reasons:** The bank contends the ECB did not adequately explain the reasons for withdrawing the license based on failures in implementing a prudent strategy and internal control systems. The court finds the ECB provided sufficient reasoning.
4. **Violation of Right to Good Administration:** The bank argues its right to be heard and access to documents were violated. The court dismisses this, stating the bank had sufficient opportunity to present its views and the ECB was not required to review decisions made in separate resolution proceedings.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Division of Competencies:** The judgment confirms the ECB’s authority to withdraw a banking license based on violations of national law, particularly in AML/CTF matters. It clarifies that while national authorities establish the facts of violations, the ECB makes the ultimate decision on license withdrawal.
* **Scope of ECB’s Examination:** The ECB is required to conduct its own assessment of the circumstances justifying the withdrawal of a license. This assessment should consider all relevant information, including decisions and reports from national authorities.
* **Right to Good Administration:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural rights, including the right to be heard and access to the file. However, it also acknowledges that these rights may be balanced against the need for swift action in supervisory matters.
* **Judicial Review:** The court’s review is limited to verifying that the ECB’s decision is not based on materially inaccurate facts, legal errors, manifest errors of assessment, or misuse of power. The court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the ECB.
Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#CV contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Rémunération – Allocations familiales – Allocation de foyer – Divorce – Versement d’une pension alimentaire à l’ex-conjoint – Charges de famille assumées effectivement par le fonctionnaire.#Affaire T-146/24.
This is a judgment of the Tribunal (Fourth Chamber) from June 4, 2025, in Case T-146/24, between CV (the applicant) and the European Commission (the defendant). The case concerns the refusal by the Commission to grant a household allowance to CV, a retired Commission official, following his divorce. The Tribunal dismisses CV’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** CV, a retired Commission official, divorced in June 2023. As part of the divorce settlement, he was required to pay his ex-wife a monthly alimony of EUR 2,000. Following the divorce, the Commission’s Office “Management and Liquidation of Individual Rights” (PMO) stopped his household allowance. CV argued that he was still entitled to the allowance due to the “actual and substantial family burden” resulting from the alimony payments. His claim was rejected by the PMO and subsequently by the Appointing Authority (AIPN).
2. **Claims:** CV sought the annulment of the AIPN’s decision rejecting his claim and the PMO’s initial decision, as well as recognition of his right to the household allowance.
3. **Legal Analysis:**
* **Subject of the Dispute:** The Tribunal clarified that the action was against the initial PMO decision, with the AIPN’s decision only relevant for assessing the legality of the PMO’s decision.
* **Admissibility of the First Plea:** CV’s first argument was based on Article 2(4) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, concerning family allowances. The Tribunal ruled this inadmissible because CV had not initially claimed this allowance in his administrative complaint.
* **Substance of the Second Plea:** CV’s main argument was based on Article 1(2)(d) of Annex VII, claiming he effectively bore family burdens due to the alimony payments and should receive the household allowance. He also argued that he was being discriminated against compared to married officials and that there was indirect discrimination based on gender.
4. **Tribunal’s Reasoning:**
* The Tribunal noted that according to the Commission’s General Implementing Provisions (GIP), to receive the household allowance under Article 1(2)(d), the person for whom the allowance is claimed must be a family member, reside permanently with the official, and be unable to support themselves financially.
* The Tribunal agreed with the Commission that CV’s ex-wife could no longer be considered a family member after the divorce.
* The Tribunal also noted that CV and his ex-wife had been living separately since 2005, thus not meeting the co-residence requirement.
* Regarding discrimination, the Tribunal found that CV’s situation was not comparable to that of a married official, as the purpose of the household allowance is to compensate for the burdens of marriage and facilitate family life, which no longer applied to CV after his divorce.
* On the claim of indirect gender discrimination, the Tribunal found that CV had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim that the policy disproportionately disadvantaged men.
5. **Decision:** The Tribunal dismissed CV’s action and ordered him to pay the costs.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* **Article 1(2)(d) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations:** This provision allows for the grant of a household allowance to officials who do not meet the standard criteria but effectively bear family burdens, based on a special and reasoned decision by the AIPN.
* **Article 2 of the General Implementing Provisions (GIP):** This article sets out the conditions for granting the household allowance under Article 1(2)(d), including that the person for whom the allowance is claimed must be a family member, reside permanently with the official, and be unable to support themselves financially.
This judgment clarifies that the household allowance is primarily intended to support ongoing family relationships and the burdens of marriage. It confirms that after a divorce, the ex-spouse is no longer considered a family member for the purposes of this allowance, and the requirement of co-residence must be met.
Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Dessin ou modèle communautaire – Procédure de nullité – Dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré représentant un masque de plongée – Motifs de nullité – Caractéristiques de l’apparence d’un produit exclusivement imposées par la fonction technique de celui-ci – Article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 6/2002 – Absence de caractère individuel – Article 4, paragraphe 1, et article 6, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement n° 6/2002.#Affaire T-1060/23.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the validity of a registered Community design for a diving mask. Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Delta-Sport) sought to invalidate a design owned by Decathlon, arguing that the mask’s features were solely dictated by technical function and lacked individual character. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal rejected Delta-Sport’s appeal, leading to this case before the General Court.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: The General Court dismisses Delta-Sport’s claims, upholding the validity of Decathlon’s diving mask design. The Court addresses two main arguments: (1) whether the design’s features are exclusively dictated by technical function (Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) and (2) whether the design lacks individual character (Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002). The Court finds that Delta-Sport failed to prove that all features of the mask were solely determined by technical requirements. It also concludes that the mask possesses individual character, as it creates a different overall impression on an informed user compared to prior designs.
The most important provisions for practical use are the court’s interpretation of Article 8(1) and Articles 4(1) and 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. The court emphasizes that for a design to be invalidated under Article 8(1), all its features must be exclusively dictated by technical function. If even one feature is not solely technical, the design remains valid. Regarding individual character, the court clarifies that the overall impression on an informed user is the key factor. The court also considers the designer’s degree of freedom in creating the design.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2025 (Extracts).ABLV Bank AS v European Central Bank.Access to documents – Decision 2004/258/EC – Documents relating to the announcement of a United States authority (FinCEN) concerning ABLV Bank – Partial refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law – Exception relating to the protection of documents for internal use – Exception relating to the protection of exchanges of views between the ECB and the relevant authorities – Sufficiently precise nature of an application for access – Duty of the ECB to provide assistance – Article 6(1) and (2) of Decision 2004/258.Case T-100/23.
This is an analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2025 in Case T-100/23, ABLV Bank AS v European Central Bank (ECB).
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns ABLV Bank’s application for access to documents held by the ECB related to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announcement and other related matters. The ECB partially refused access, citing exceptions related to confidentiality, internal use, and exchanges of views with other authorities. The General Court upheld the ECB’s decision, finding that the ECB had acted lawfully in its handling of the bank’s request.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses the applicant’s claims that the ECB’s list of documents was incomplete, that the ECB incorrectly referred to the FinCEN website, that the ECB unlawfully refused access to certain documents, that the ECB failed to grant access to the file, and that the ECB unlawfully suspended the procedure for access to documents with respect to the second batch. The court systematically addresses each of these pleas, examining the relevant provisions of Decision 2004/258/EC regarding public access to documents. The judgment focuses on the interpretation and application of Article 6(1) and (2) of Decision 2004/258, which concern the precision of the application for access and the duty of the ECB to provide assistance to the applicant.
**Main Provisions and Importance:**
The most important provisions discussed in the judgment are those related to the precision required in an application for access to documents and the duty of the ECB to assist applicants in clarifying their requests. The court confirms that an application must be sufficiently precise to enable the institution to identify the requested documents. It also clarifies that the ECB has a duty to assist applicants in clarifying their applications if they are not sufficiently precise, but that applicants cannot avoid clarifying their requests and then claim that the ECB has acted unlawfully. This aspect is crucial for understanding the balance between the right of access to documents and the practical limitations on institutions in processing broad and vague requests.
Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#Toya Development sp. z o.o. sp.k. contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative TOYA – Cause de nullité absolue – Mauvaise foi – Article 52, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 59, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001].#Affaire T-199/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) regarding an action brought by Toya Development sp. z o.o. sp. k. against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of the EU trademark “TOYA,” specifically whether the trademark should be nullified due to bad faith on the part of the trademark holder, Jan Szmidt. The General Court dismisses Toya Development’s action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that the trademark was not registered in bad faith.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Toya Development seeks annulment of the EUIPO’s decision.
2. **Background:** Details the initial trademark application, the subsequent request for nullity by Toya Development, and the EUIPO’s initial and appellate decisions.
3. **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Toya Development, EUIPO, and Jan Szmidt.
4. **Legal Analysis:** The Court assesses whether the EUIPO correctly applied Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (formerly Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009), which concerns bad faith in trademark registration.
5. **Decision:** The Court dismisses Toya Development’s action and orders them to bear the costs.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are:
* The judgment refers to Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which is the current legal basis for assessing bad faith in EU trademark registration. It also mentions the previous regulation, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the relevant law applicable at the time of the initial trademark application.
* The Court reiterates established principles for assessing bad faith, including considering the applicant’s knowledge of third-party use, intention to prevent such use, and the degree of legal protection of the signs involved.
* The Court emphasizes that bad faith must be determined objectively, considering all relevant factual circumstances.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging bad faith.
* It clarifies that the existence of a prior commercial relationship between the parties does not automatically imply bad faith.
* It confirms that the relevant date for assessing bad faith is the date of the trademark application.
* It highlights that the EU trademark registration system is based on the “first to file” principle.
* It reiterates that the lack of current economic activity in the relevant field by the trademark applicant does not automatically indicate bad faith.
Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#German Khan contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques – Maintien du nom du requérant sur la liste – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous d) et g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous d) et g), du règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Droit d’être entendu – Erreur d’appréciation – Proportionnalité – Droit de propriété – Liberté d’entreprise – Exception d’illégalité.#Affaire T-289/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of German Khan v. Council of the European Union:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This judgment concerns the legality of the EU Council’s decisions to maintain German Khan’s name on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze) due to actions undermining or threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The Tribunal dismisses Khan’s appeal, upholding the Council’s decisions. The judgment addresses various legal arguments raised by Khan, including the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, the right to be heard, and the proportionality of the measures.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of EU restrictive measures against individuals and entities in response to the situation in Ukraine, starting with Decision 2014/145/PESC and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. It details the initial listing of Khan in March 2022 and subsequent decisions to prolong his inclusion on the list.
* **Grounds for the Decision:** The Council’s reasons for maintaining Khan on the list evolved over time, initially citing his ties to the Alfa Group conglomerate, his close relationship with Vladimir Putin, and his involvement in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government. Later justifications included his participation in a Russian industrialists’ congress and the activities of Alfa Group subsidiaries.
* **Khan’s Arguments:** Khan challenged the Council’s decisions on multiple grounds, including:
* Violation of essential procedural requirements and the obligation for periodic review.
* Errors in assessing the facts and applying the relevant criteria.
* The alleged illegality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions (specifically, Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/PESC and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, both in their original and amended forms).
* Violation of the principle of proportionality.
* **Tribunal’s Reasoning:** The Tribunal systematically addresses each of Khan’s arguments, rejecting them. Key points include:
* The Council fulfilled its obligation to periodically review Khan’s situation and provide him with the opportunity to be heard.
* The Council had sufficient evidence to support its assessment that Khan met the criteria for sanctions, particularly regarding his influence in the Russian economy and his involvement in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government.
* The criteria used for imposing sanctions were not illegal or disproportionate.
* The measures did not violate Khan’s fundamental rights, such as the right to property and freedom to conduct a business.
* **Decision:** The Tribunal dismisses Khan’s appeal and orders him to pay the costs.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving the grounds for imposing sanctions, but it also acknowledges the difficulty of accessing evidence in certain situations, allowing for a degree of flexibility in the standard of proof.
* **Periodic Review:** The judgment clarifies the scope of the Council’s obligation to periodically review sanctions, emphasizing that it must conduct an updated assessment of the situation and consider the impact of the measures.
* **Criteria for Sanctions:** The judgment provides insight into the interpretation of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, particularly regarding the concept of “influential businesspersons” and the requirement that they be involved in sectors providing a “substantial source of revenue” to the Russian government.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment emphasizes that restrictive measures must be proportionate to the objectives pursued, but it also recognizes the importance of those objectives, such as maintaining peace and international security, which may justify significant negative consequences for individuals.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The judgment confirms that fundamental rights, such as the right to property and freedom to conduct a business, are not absolute and may be subject to limitations justified by objectives of general interest.
: This act is related to the EU’s sanctions regime concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. It has implications for individuals and entities targeted by these sanctions, including Ukrainians.
Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 4 juin 2025.#Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Dessin ou modèle communautaire – Procédure de nullité – Dessin ou modèle communautaire enregistré représentant un masque de plongée – Motifs de nullité – Caractéristiques de l’apparence d’un produit exclusivement imposées par la fonction technique de celui-ci – Article 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 6/2002 – Absence de caractère individuel – Article 4, paragraphe 1, et article 6, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement n° 6/2002.#Affaire T-1061/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of the European Union regarding an action brought by Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of a registered Community design for a diving mask held by Decathlon. Delta-Sport sought to invalidate the design, arguing that its features were solely dictated by technical function and lacked individual character.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Introduction**: Delta-Sport seeks annulment and reformation of the EUIPO decision rejecting its application for invalidation.
2. **Background**: Describes the history of the case, including the application for invalidity, the grounds for invalidity, the decision of the Cancellation Division, and the decision of the Board of Appeal.
3. **Arguments of the Parties**: Summarizes the arguments of Delta-Sport, EUIPO, and Decathlon.
4. **Legal Analysis**:
* **First Plea**: Violation of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 8(1) of that regulation (features exclusively dictated by technical function).
* **Second Plea**: Violation of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(b) of that regulation (lack of individual character).
5. **Decision on Costs**: Determines who bears the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable here, as this is a judgment, not a legislative act.
The most important provisions for its use are:
* **Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002**: A Community design does not grant rights to features of appearance solely dictated by the technical function of the product.
* **Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002**: A design has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced by any design made available to the public before the date of filing or priority.
* **Burden of Proof**: The party seeking invalidation bears the burden of proving that the design does not meet the requirements of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002.
* **Assessment of Technical Function**: The court clarifies how to assess whether features are exclusively dictated by technical function, emphasizing that aesthetic considerations can also play a role.
* **Assessment of Individual Character**: The court reiterates the criteria for assessing individual character, including the informed user’s perspective and the designer’s degree of freedom.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2025.Alfa-Bank JSC v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Action for annulment – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Partial inadmissibility – Plea of illegality – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Right to effective judicial protection – Right to be heard – Right to property – Freedom to conduct a business – Proportionality.Case T-271/23.
This is the General Court’s judgment in Case T-271/23, *Alfa-Bank JSC v Council*, concerning the restrictive measures imposed on Alfa-Bank by the European Union following Russia’s actions against Ukraine. The court rules on Alfa-Bank’s application for annulment of several Council decisions and regulations that included and maintained the bank’s name on the EU’s sanctions list. The court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the EU’s sanctions against Alfa-Bank.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Briefly outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia due to the situation in Ukraine and the listing of Alfa-Bank.
* **Claims for Annulment:** Addresses Alfa-Bank’s specific claims for annulment of Council Decision 2023/1094 and Council Regulation 2023/1089.
* **Substance:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court examines the merits of Alfa-Bank’s arguments against the sanctions. It considers the following pleas:
* **Plea of Illegality:** Alfa-Bank challenges the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, specifically Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended.
* **Infringement of Obligation to State Reasons:** Alfa-Bank argues that the Council did not provide sufficient reasons for including it on the sanctions list.
* **Infringement of Rights of Defence and Effective Judicial Protection:** Alfa-Bank claims it was not given adequate opportunity to be heard before the sanctions were imposed.
* **Manifest Error of Assessment:** Alfa-Bank argues that the Council made errors in assessing the facts and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the sanctions.
* **Insufficiency of Factual Basis for Links:** Alfa-Bank claims there was not enough evidence to link it to individuals or entities associated with undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
* **Infringement of Fundamental Rights and Proportionality:** Alfa-Bank argues that the sanctions violate its fundamental rights and are disproportionate.
* **Costs:** The court orders Alfa-Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment deals with the application of restrictive measures based on Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended. A key point of contention is the interpretation and application of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, which allows for sanctions against “leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.”
The judgment also discusses the amendment of Article 2(1)(g) by Decision 2023/1094, which clarified the criteria for imposing sanctions.
**Most Important Provisions:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* **Interpretation of Sanctions Criteria:** The court provides detailed interpretation of the criteria used to impose sanctions, particularly the meaning of “leading businesspersons” and “economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue.”
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The court assesses the evidence presented by the Council to justify the sanctions against Alfa-Bank, including press releases, articles, and other publicly available information.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The court considers Alfa-Bank’s arguments that the sanctions violate its fundamental rights, such as the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property, and assesses whether the restrictions are proportionate.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment affirms the court’s role in reviewing the legality of EU sanctions, ensuring that they are based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and comply with fundamental rights.
**** This case is related to the restrictive measures taken by the EU in response to the actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2025.Sven Benschop v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ALWAYS RUN 4PRESIDENT – Earlier EU figurative mark PRESIDENT’s – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use.Case T-76/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Sven Benschop to register the figurative mark “ALWAYS RUN 4PRESIDENT” and an opposition filed by Seven Bell Group, based on their earlier EU figurative mark “PRESIDENT’s”.
The core issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, which is prohibited under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal had previously decided that there was a likelihood of confusion, primarily due to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier “PRESIDENT’s” mark acquired through its use.
The General Court annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal, finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The Court’s reasoning focuses on several key points: while the goods and services are similar, the visual similarity between the marks is low, and the phonetic and conceptual similarities are below average. The Court also finds that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark is not sufficient to offset the visual differences between the marks. The Court emphasizes that the global assessment of likelihood of confusion requires considering all relevant factors and that the Board of Appeal gave excessive weight to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark. The Court ultimately concludes that the relevant public would be able to distinguish between the two marks. The General Court rejects the opposition of Seven Bell Group.
Decision No 2/2024 of the EU-Armenia Sub-Committee on Geographical Indications of 18 October 2024 amending Annex X to the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part [2025/1104]
This document is Decision No. 2/2024 of the EU-Armenia Sub-Committee on Geographical Indications, which amends Annex X to the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Armenia. The decision updates the list of protected geographical indications for products from both the EU and Armenia, ensuring that these products are legally protected against imitation and misuse in both territories. This promotes fair trade and preserves the unique characteristics and regional reputations of these products.
The decision consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex X of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 specifies that the decision comes into force on the date of its adoption. The Annex contains an updated list of protected geographical indications, including agricultural products, foodstuffs, aromatized wines, and spirit drinks from various EU member states, as well as one product from Armenia. The list includes the name of the product to be protected, its type (PDO/PGI), the type of product, and its transcription into Armenian characters.
The most important provision of this act is the updated list of protected geographical indications in the Annex. This list details specific products from the EU and Armenia that are now legally protected under the Agreement. For EU producers, this means their products, such as “Nürnberger Glühwein” or “Gailtaler Almkäse,” are protected in Armenia. For Armenian producers, it means that “Sevani Ishkhan” (fish and seafood) is protected in the EU. This protection helps to maintain the integrity of these products and their connection to their regions of origin.
SUBCOMMITTEE I ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS – LIST OF THE NATIONAL DECISIONS ACCORDING TO REGULATION (EU) 2018/848 ART. 45 AND 47 – To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee
This document is a notice from the Subcommittee I on the Free Movement of Goods regarding national decisions related to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labeling of organic products. It concerns the incorporation of this regulation into the EEA Agreement and the recognition of third countries as having equivalent systems for organic production. The document lists national decisions made by Iceland and Norway regarding the recognition of organic production standards in Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
The document is structured as follows:
* **Points 1-7:** These points outline the context of the notice, referencing Regulation (EU) 2018/848, its incorporation into the EEA Agreement, and the process for recognizing third countries with equivalent organic production systems. It also mentions the notification of national decisions by EEA EFTA States and the publication of a list of these decisions.
* **Annex I:** This annex contains the list of national decisions made by Iceland and Norway, including the title and national reference of the relevant regulations.
The main provisions of the act are:
* **Recognition of Third Countries:** The EU has recognized Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom as having systems of production that meet the same objectives and principles as the EU’s organic production standards.
* **EEA EFTA States’ Decisions:** The EEA EFTA States (Iceland and Norway) have made national decisions regarding the recognition of equivalence of the third countries.
* **List of National Decisions:** The document includes a list of these national decisions, providing references to the specific regulations in Iceland and Norway.
The most important provisions for its use are the national references to the regulations in Iceland and Norway, as these provide the specific legal basis for the recognition of organic production standards from Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom within those countries.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority not to raise objections to a state aid scheme implemented by Liechtenstein. The scheme, operating under the Media Support Act, aims to preserve media pluralism, promote journalistic quality, and facilitate the dissemination of opinion-shaping media. The aid is provided through direct grants with varying intensity and will last until the end of 2029.
The decision concerns a state aid scheme, meaning it outlines the framework under which aid will be granted rather than a specific instance of aid. The core elements include:
* **Objective:** The scheme is designed to support media pluralism and journalistic quality in Liechtenstein.
* **Legal Basis:** The scheme operates under the Media Support Act of 2006, its amending acts, the Ordinance on Media Support of 2016, its amending acts, and the Media Act of 2005, its amending acts.
* **Type of Measure:** The aid is provided as a direct grant.
* **Budget:** The total budget allocated to the scheme is CHF 11.04 million.
* **Intensity:** The aid intensity varies from 25% to 75%.
* **Duration:** The scheme is set to run until December 31, 2029.
* **Economic Sectors:** The scheme targets the information and communication sectors.
The most important aspect of this decision is that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has found the state aid scheme to be compatible with EEA state aid rules, allowing Liechtenstein to proceed with its implementation. This means that the Authority has assessed that the scheme does not unduly distort competition within the European Economic Area.
