Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1132
This regulation amends existing regulations to adjust tariff rate quotas for products originating in Ukraine during 2025. Specifically, it modifies Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 to reflect the transition from temporary trade liberalization measures back to the rules established under the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. From June 6 to December 31, 2025, new tariff rate quotas will apply to cereals, beef, milk, pigmeat, eggs, and poultry. The regulation specifies quantities, tariff periods, proof of origin, and in-quota customs duties for each product category and introduces conversion factors for egg products to ensure accurate quota management. Key provisions include pro-rated quantities for tariff quotas and chronological administration based on customs declaration dates, as well as conversion factors for egg products.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1112
This regulation updates the Union list of flavourings used in food by adding two new substances, Naringenin and 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one, to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated both substances and concluded their use is safe under specific conditions. The regulation specifies conditions and maximum levels for the use of Naringenin in various food categories and approves 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one specifically for chewing gum at a maximum level of 100 mg/kg. This regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This regulation suspends specific articles within Regulation (EU) 2015/478 concerning imports from Ukraine. The suspension aims to mitigate the economic impact of the Russia-Ukraine war by exempting Ukrainian imports from Union surveillance and safeguard measures, thus supporting Ukraine’s trade under the existing Association Agreement. The most crucial provisions involve the suspension of safeguard measures and granting the Commission power to temporarily reinstate them if import levels cause significant injury to Union producers. The regulation applies from June 6, 2025, to June 5, 2028.
CJEU Judgment on Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention
This judgment clarifies that under the Montreal Convention, a passenger can file a complaint about delayed baggage before the baggage is actually returned. While the convention sets a 21-day deadline after the baggage is made available, this does not prevent passengers from filing complaints as soon as they are aware of the delay. This interpretation protects consumer interests by allowing prompt action against the carrier.
CJEU Judgment on Directive 2011/95/EU
This judgment clarifies that Article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU *precludes* national legislation from granting subsidiary protection based solely on the risk of infringing the right to private life due to the severing of ties with the host Member State upon return to the country of origin. The Court underscores that international protection aims to substitute the protection that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide.
CJEU Judgment on Directive 2008/7/EC
This judgment interprets Directive 2008/7/EC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital. Specifically, it examines whether stamp duty charged on guarantees for a debenture loan is compatible with the Directive. The Court’s interpretation clarifies that duties on charges that secure a loan may be permissible, but the national court must determine whether the guarantees in this case such as pledges of shares, bank account balances, and receivables meet that definition of “other charges on land or other property”. The term “other charges on land or other property” covers all the contractual instruments forming an integral part of a transaction for the raising of loan capital which enable the holder of a receivable to obtain preferential or priority payment of that receivable in the event that the debtor does not honor its obligations.
CJEU Judgment on Energy Billing Disputes
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that EU law does not provide specific guidance on how to resolve disputes regarding billing when a meter malfunctions and prevents accurate measurement of electricity consumption. The court clarified that EU laws, Article 18 of Regulation 2019/943, Article 10(4), Article 46(2)(d) and Article 59(1)(a) of Directive 2019/944 and Article 27 of Directive 2011/83, are not applicable to a situation where a customer is billed for estimated electricity consumption due to a faulty meter.
CJEU Ruling on Data Protection and Judicial Files
The Court of Justice of the European Union declined jurisdiction to answer questions from a Bulgarian court regarding the interpretation of EU law concerning data protection and access to judicial files by lawyers not representing a party in the case. The Court stated that the questions do not relate to a genuine dispute before the national court and that the request does not seek a decision of a judicial nature, as the national court was acting in an administrative capacity, not a judicial one.
CJEU Judgment on Public Procurement Contracts
This judgment clarifies that the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency preclude the application by analogy to a works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of provisions of national law governing guarantees in respect of contracts for sale, the content of which was not expressly stated either in the tender documents or in the works contract, where the applicability of such provisions is not sufficiently clear and foreseeable to a reasonably informed tenderer exercising ordinary care. Public procurement contracts must be clear and transparent, especially regarding warranty conditions. Tenderers should be able to understand their obligations from the contract documents themselves, without having to rely on obscure interpretations of national law.
CJEU Judgment on Consumer Protection Laws
The Court of Justice of the European Union has judged that a flat-rate penalty imposed on a consumer for early termination of a fixed-term electricity contract due to non-payment may be considered unfair. A contractual term imposing a flat-rate penalty for early termination of a fixed-term electricity contract may be deemed unfair if it is disproportionate to the actual economic loss suffered by the supplier. Court stresses the importance of transparency, stating that contract terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language and presented in a way that allows consumers to understand their rights and obligations.
CJEU Judgment on Judicial Independence in Romania
The CJEU reaffirms that judicial independence is essential. Member States have the power to reduce judges’ remuneration under certain conditions. Such measures must be provided for by law, justified by an objective in the general interest (such as eliminating an excessive government deficit), and proportionate to the objective pursued and should be exceptional and temporary and even with budgetary restrictions, the level of judges’ remuneration must remain commensurate with the importance of their functions. The CJEU ruled that the repeal of the severance payment in this specific context did not violate the principle of judicial independence.
Notice from the Subcommittee on Free Movement of Goods
This document lists national decisions made by Iceland and Norway regarding the recognition of Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom as countries with equivalent organic production standards to Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on State Aid in Liechtenstein
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections to a state aid scheme in Liechtenstein aimed at preserving media pluralism, promoting journalistic quality, and facilitating the dissemination of opinion-shaping media. The aid will be provided in the form of direct grants, with a total budget of CHF 11.04 million, and will be in effect until December 31, 2029. The intensity of the aid will range from 25% to 75%.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
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 administration of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for Ukrainian agricultural products to reflect the temporary trade liberalization measures and the reversion to the rules established under the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine. It ensures the continuity of quota usage by pro-rating the quantities for the period following the expiration of the temporary measures.
The regulation modifies Annexes II, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 and Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988. It introduces new tariff rate quotas for cereals, beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat, eggs, and poultry meat, applicable from June 6 to December 31, 2025. The regulation also specifies the quantities, tariff quota periods, sub-periods, proof of origin, in-quota customs duties, and specific conditions for each product category. Additionally, it introduces conversion factors for eggs to account for different product forms.
The most important provisions include the pro-rated quantities for tariff rate quotas applicable from June 6 to December 31, 2025, and the administration of specific quotas (09.4306, 09.4307, 09.4308, 09.4270, 09.4600, 09.4601, 09.4602, 09.4271, 09.4272, 09.4275, 09.4276, 09.4273 and 09.4274) in chronological order based on the date of customs declarations. The introduction of conversion factors for egg products is also a key element for accurate quota management.
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. These additions come after evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which concluded that their use under specific conditions does not raise safety concerns.
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 this 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 confirms its binding and directly applicable nature 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, adding the two new flavouring substances along with their respective restrictions and conditions of use.
The most important provisions for practical use are the specific conditions and maximum levels for the use of Naringenin and 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one in various food categories. Naringenin is approved for use in a wide range of food categories with varying maximum limits, while 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one is specifically approved for use in chewing gum at a maximum level of 100 mg/kg.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2025 suspending certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 as regards imports of Ukrainian products into the Union
****
This is an analysis of Regulation (EU) 2025/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2025, which suspends certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 regarding imports of Ukrainian products into the Union. The regulation aims to mitigate the negative economic impact of Russia’s war against Ukraine by exempting Ukrainian imports from Union surveillance and safeguard measures. This is intended to support Ukraine’s trade capabilities under the existing Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It contains four articles. Article 1 outlines the suspension of specific articles within Regulation (EU) 2015/478 concerning imports from Ukraine. Article 2 allows the Commission to temporarily suspend the application of the regulation for specific products originating in Ukraine under certain conditions. Article 3 establishes the committee procedure for implementing acts related to temporary suspensions. Article 4 specifies the entry into force and the period of application of the regulation, which is from 6 June 2025 to 5 June 2028.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the suspension of safeguard measures and the Commission’s power to reinstate them temporarily for specific products. Specifically, Article 1, which suspends key articles of Regulation 2015/478, and Article 2, which allows for temporary suspension of the new regulation for specific products if their import levels cause significant injury to Union producers, are crucial. This mechanism allows the EU to balance support for Ukraine with the protection of its own market.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2025.AD v Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España, SA Operadora Unipersonal.Reference for a preliminary ruling – International air transport – Montreal Convention – Air carrier liability – Article 19 – Damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo – Article 31(2) – Timely notice of complaints – Complaint before the date on which the baggage concerned was placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery of it.Case C-292/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Montreal Convention, which deals with timely notice of complaints in international air transport. The case specifically concerns a passenger’s right to claim damages for delayed baggage. The central issue is whether a passenger can file a complaint about delayed baggage before the baggage is actually returned to them, or if the complaint period only begins once the baggage is returned.
The judgment clarifies that a complaint about delayed baggage, according to the Montreal Convention, can indeed be made before the baggage is returned to the passenger. It emphasizes that while the convention sets a 21-day deadline for complaints after the baggage is made available, this doesn’t prevent passengers from filing complaints as soon as they are aware of the delay. The court supports this interpretation by considering the context and objectives of the Montreal Convention, which aims to protect consumer interests and ensure a fair balance between the rights of passengers and air carriers.
The most important provision clarified by this judgment is that passengers do not need to wait until their baggage is returned to file a complaint for delay. They can do so as soon as they experience the delay, which could be crucial for seeking compensation and initiating action against the carrier. This interpretation aligns with the convention’s goal of protecting consumer interests by allowing passengers to promptly address issues arising from delayed baggage.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2025.A.B. v Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 3 – More favourable standards – Subsidiary protection – Reason that has no direct link with the situation in the country of origin – Rationale of international protection.Case C-349/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2011/95/EU, which sets standards for who qualifies for international protection (refugee or subsidiary protection status) in EU Member States. The case specifically addresses whether a Member State can grant subsidiary protection based on reasons not directly linked to the applicant’s country of origin, particularly when removal would infringe the applicant’s right to private life due to strong ties in the host Member State. The CJEU clarifies the scope of “more favorable standards” that Member States can adopt, ensuring they remain within the rationale of international protection.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the request for a preliminary ruling from a Czech court, the legal framework involving EU directives (2011/95/EU and 2008/115/EC), and relevant Czech legislation on asylum.
2. **The Dispute:** It details the case of A.B., a third-country national, whose application for international protection was repeatedly rejected by Czech authorities. The rejections were based on an interpretation of Czech law that was later revised by the Supreme Administrative Court, leading to the referring court’s doubts about the compatibility of the revised interpretation with EU law.
3. **The Question Referred:** The Czech court asks whether Article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU allows a Member State to grant subsidiary protection based on a threat of serious harm not recognized by the directive, specifically if the applicant’s removal would violate the Member State’s international obligations due to the applicant’s situation (private life) in the host country.
4. **Consideration of the Question Referred:** The CJEU reformulates the question to focus on whether national legislation can grant subsidiary protection to a third-country national facing a breach of their right to private life (due to severed links with the host Member State) if removed to their country of origin.
5. **Judgment:** The CJEU concludes that Article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU *precludes* national legislation from granting subsidiary protection based solely on the risk of infringing the right to private life due to the severing of ties with the host Member State upon return to the country of origin. The Court emphasizes that international protection is linked to the situation in the applicant’s country of origin, not the host Member State.
The most important provision of this act is Article 3 of Directive 2011/95/EU. It clarifies that while Member States can adopt more favorable standards for granting international protection, these standards must be compatible with the directive’s overall scheme and objectives. This means that Member States cannot grant subsidiary protection based on reasons entirely unrelated to the applicant’s situation in their country of origin. The judgment underscores that international protection aims to substitute the protection that the country of origin is unable or unwilling to provide.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2025.Corner and Border SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2008/7/EC – Article 5(2)(b) – Article 6(1)(d) – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital – Concept of ‘other charges on land or other property’ – Stamp duty on guarantees provided for the purposes of the proper execution of a debenture loan.Case C-685/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2008/7/EC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital. The case revolves around a Portuguese company, Corner and Border S.A., which was charged stamp duty on guarantees provided for a debenture loan. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether this stamp duty is compatible with the Directive, specifically concerning the provisions on taxes related to raising capital and exceptions for charges on land or other property.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It starts with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the parties involved.
2. It then presents the legal context, detailing the relevant articles of Directive 2008/7/EC and the Portuguese Stamp Duty Code.
3. Next, it describes the dispute in the main proceedings, focusing on the facts of the case, the arguments presented by Corner and Border S.A., and the questions referred to the CJEU by the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa – CAAD) (Tax Arbitration Tribunal (Centre for Administrative Arbitration – CAAD), Portugal).
4. The judgment then proceeds to consider the questions referred, providing an analysis of the relevant articles of the Directive.
5. Finally, the Court provides its ruling.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2008/7/EC, which generally prohibits indirect taxes on loans raised by issuing debentures.
* Article 6(1)(d) of Directive 2008/7/EC, which allows Member States to charge duties on the creation, registration, or discharge of mortgages or other charges on land or other property, notwithstanding the prohibitions in Article 5.
The Court’s interpretation clarifies that while Article 5(2)(b) aims to prevent taxes that hinder the raising of capital through debentures, Article 6(1)(d) provides an exception for duties on charges that secure the loan. The key point is whether the guarantees in question such as pledges of shares, bank account balances, and receivables can be considered “other charges on land or other property”. The Court states that the term “other charges on land or other property” covers all the contractual instruments forming an integral part of a transaction for the raising of loan capital which enable the holder of a receivable to obtain preferential or priority payment of that receivable in the event that the debtor does not honor its obligations. The national court must determine whether the guarantees in this case meet that definition.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2025.YL v „Elektrorazpredelitelni mrezhi Zapad“ EAD.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market for electricity – Regulation (EU) 2019/943 – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Scope – Electricity consumption inaccurately measured owing to meter malfunction – Billing on the basis of estimated electricity consumption – Consumer rights – Directive 2011/83/EU – Scope – Unsolicited supply.Case C-310/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling from a Bulgarian court. The case revolves around a dispute between a residential customer (YL) and an electricity distribution company (‘Elektrorazpredelitelni mrezhi Zapad’ EAD, or ERM Zapad) regarding an invoice based on estimated electricity consumption due to a malfunctioning meter. The Bulgarian court is seeking clarification on the interpretation of several EU directives and regulations related to the internal market for electricity and consumer rights.
The judgment addresses the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 and Directive (EU) 2019/944, which concern the internal market for electricity, and Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. The Bulgarian court’s questions concern whether EU law allows an electricity company to bill a customer based on estimated consumption when the meter is faulty, and whether the customer is obligated to pay for this estimated amount. The CJEU concludes that the EU legislation cited does not govern the legal consequences of a malfunctioning electricity meter in the specific context of the case.
The key takeaway from this judgment is that the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that EU law, specifically Article 18 of Regulation 2019/943, Article 10(4), Article 46(2)(d) and Article 59(1)(a) of Directive 2019/944 and Article 27 of Directive 2011/83, does not provide specific guidance on how to resolve disputes regarding billing when a meter malfunctions and prevents accurate measurement of electricity consumption. The court clarified that these EU laws are not applicable to a situation where a customer is billed for estimated electricity consumption due to a faulty meter.
Arrêt de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 5 juin 2025.##Renvoi préjudiciel – Absence de litige – Absence de procédure destinée à aboutir à une décision de caractère juridictionnel – Incompétence de la Cour.#Affaire C-541/24.
This is a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling from a Bulgarian court. The CJEU declares that it lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Bulgarian court. The case revolves around the interpretation of EU law concerning data protection and access to judicial files by lawyers who are not representing a party in the case.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The ruling addresses a request from a Bulgarian court (Sofiyski rayonen sad) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 6(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 19 TEU, and Articles 7, 8, and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
* The request arose in the context of a procedure initiated by a lawyer seeking to consult a judicial file.
* The CJEU’s decision is based on the assessment that the conditions for its jurisdiction under Article 267 TFEU are not met. The Court argues that the questions referred do not relate to a genuine dispute before the national court and that the request does not seek a decision of a judicial nature.
* The Court emphasizes that the questions relate to a request to access a judicial file by a lawyer representing someone not party to the main proceedings, which is a separate procedure that could lead to an administrative decision, not a judicial one.
* The CJEU recalls that it is not competent to rule when a national court acts in an administrative capacity.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Jurisdiction of the CJEU:** The ruling reinforces the principle that the CJEU’s jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings is limited to cases where there is a genuine dispute before a national court and where the national court is seeking a ruling to enable it to render a judgment of a judicial nature.
* **Access to Judicial Files:** The ruling touches upon the issue of access to judicial files, particularly in the context of data protection and the rights of lawyers. However, because the CJEU declined jurisdiction, it does not provide substantive guidance on how to balance these competing interests under EU law.
* **Administrative vs. Judicial Functions:** The ruling clarifies that when a national court acts in an administrative capacity, such as managing access to court files, it cannot request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2025.Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Wodociągów i Kanalizacji w m.st. Warszawie S.A. v Veolia Water Technologies sp. z o.o. and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC – Principle of equal treatment – Obligation of transparency – Public works contract – Applicability by analogy to a public works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of rules on guarantees in respect of contracts for sale.Case C-82/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU public procurement directives, specifically Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, in the context of a dispute over a public works contract in Poland. The case revolves around whether national law regarding guarantees in sales contracts can be applied by analogy to a public works contract, even if this isn’t explicitly stated in the contract documents. The CJEU clarifies the principles of equal treatment and transparency in public procurement, emphasizing the need for clear and foreseeable conditions for tenderers.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the parties involved. It then details the legal context, referencing relevant articles from Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, as well as provisions from the Polish Civil Code and the Law on Public Procurement. The judgment describes the factual background of the dispute, concerning a contract for the modernisation of the Czajka sewage treatment plant in Warsaw, and the specific issue regarding the warranty period for replaced equipment. The Court then proceeds to consider the question referred by the Polish court, providing an analysis of the principles of equal treatment and transparency. Finally, the CJEU provides its ruling, answering the question posed by the referring court.
The most important provision of this act is that the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency preclude the application by analogy to a works contract, pursuant to a judicial interpretation, of provisions of national law governing guarantees in respect of contracts for sale, the content of which was not expressly stated either in the tender documents or in the works contract, where the applicability of such provisions is not sufficiently clear and foreseeable to a reasonably informed tenderer exercising ordinary care. This means that public procurement contracts must be clear and transparent, especially regarding warranty conditions. Tenderers should be able to understand their obligations from the contract documents themselves, without having to rely on obscure interpretations of national law.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2025.innogy Energie, s.r.o. v QS.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Articles 3, 5, 7 and the Annex, point 1(e) – Fixed-term electricity supply contracts – Term imposing a contractual penalty where payment is not made – Whether the amount of the penalty is proportionate – Whether the terms are in plain, intelligible language – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Inapplicability.Case C-749/23.
This document is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling concerning consumer protection laws. The case revolves around a dispute between an energy supply company (innogy Energie s.r.o.) and a consumer (QS) regarding a contractual penalty imposed on the consumer for failing to make payments in a fixed-term electricity supply contract. The referring court seeks clarification on whether the penalty clause is unfair under EU law, specifically Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts and, initially, Directive 2019/944 on common rules for the internal market for electricity.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the context of the request and the relevant legal provisions from EU directives and Czech national law. It then presents the factual background of the dispute, including the terms of the electricity supply contract, the reasons for its termination, and the imposition of the contractual penalty. The judgment then addresses the questions posed by the referring court, ultimately ruling on the interpretation of Directive 93/13/EEC. The Court concludes by stating that a flat-rate penalty imposed on a consumer for early termination of a fixed-term electricity contract due to non-payment may be considered unfair. The Court emphasizes the importance of transparency in contract terms, requiring that consumers be able to understand the implications of such penalties.
The most important provisions of the act are those interpreting Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC in conjunction with point 1(e) of the Annex, and Article 7. The court clarifies that a contractual term imposing a flat-rate penalty for early termination of a fixed-term electricity contract may be deemed unfair if it is disproportionate to the actual economic loss suffered by the supplier. Furthermore, the Court stresses the importance of transparency, stating that contract terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language and presented in a way that allows consumers to understand their rights and obligations. The Court also clarifies the criteria for assessing the fairness and transparency of contractual terms, emphasizing the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case and the perspective of an average consumer.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2025.RL and Others v Curtea de Apel Bucureşti.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Payment of severance pay to judges and prosecutors upon retirement – Suspension and cancellation of that payment for reasons connected to the need to eliminate a budget deficit – Article 2 TEU – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Principle of judicial independence – Powers of the legislature and executive of Member States to reduce judges’ remuneration – Conditions.Case C-762/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling regarding the independence of the judiciary in Romania. The case revolves around the repeal of a severance payment for judges with 20 years of service, which had been suspended for an extended period due to budgetary constraints. The CJEU provides guidance on the conditions under which a Member State can reduce judges’ remuneration without infringing the principle of judicial independence enshrined in EU law.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Sets the context of the preliminary ruling request and the parties involved.
2. **Legal Context:** Outlines the relevant Romanian laws, including Law No. 24/2000, the Law on the former statute for judges and prosecutors, Law No. 285/2010, and the Law on the new statute for judges and prosecutors. It details the provisions regarding severance pay for judges and the subsequent suspension and repeal of those provisions due to economic conditions.
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the specific case before the Romanian court, where former judges are challenging the non-payment of their severance bonuses. It presents the question posed by the referring court to the CJEU, which asks whether the repeal of the severance pay infringes the principle of judicial independence under EU law.
4. **Consideration of the Question Referred:** This section contains the CJEU’s analysis and response to the referring court’s question. It addresses the interpretation of Article 19(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 2 TEU.
5. **Costs:** Determines that the referring court is responsible for deciding on the costs of the main proceedings. Costs incurred by parties other than those in the main proceedings are not recoverable.
The most important provisions of the judgment are:
* **Judicial Independence:** The CJEU reaffirms that judicial independence is essential for ensuring the full application of EU law and the protection of individuals’ rights. This independence must be guaranteed in relation to the legislature and the executive.
* **Reduction of Remuneration:** The CJEU acknowledges that Member States have the power to reduce judges’ remuneration under certain conditions. Such measures must be provided for by law, justified by an objective in the general interest (such as eliminating an excessive government deficit), and proportionate to the objective pursued.
* **Temporary and Exceptional Measures:** Any reduction in judges’ remuneration should be exceptional and temporary, not extending beyond the period necessary to achieve the legitimate objective.
* **Sufficient Remuneration:** Even with budgetary restrictions, the level of judges’ remuneration must remain commensurate with the importance of their functions to ensure their independence and protect them from external pressure or interference.
* **Legitimate Expectation:** The CJEU notes that the Romanian judges could not rely on a legitimate expectation that the severance bonus would be maintained, given the existing legal framework allowing for the suspension and repeal of such provisions.
In essence, the CJEU ruled that the repeal of the severance payment in this specific context did not violate the principle of judicial independence, considering the economic circumstances, the limited impact on overall remuneration, and the broader policy of reducing civil servant compensation in Romania.
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 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 Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom as countries with equivalent organic production standards.
The document is structured as follows:
* **Points 1-7:** These points outline the context of the list, 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 process between the EU, EFTA States, and the EEA Joint Committee.
* **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:
* It notes that Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production has been incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
* It highlights the procedure for recognizing third countries with equivalent organic production systems, involving notifications between the EU, EFTA States, and the EEA Joint Committee.
* It lists the national decisions of Iceland and Norway to recognize Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom as having equivalent systems of organic production.
The most important provisions for its use are the specific references to the national regulations of Iceland and Norway, which detail their implementation of the EU regulation and their recognition of the equivalence of organic production standards in Chile, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
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 in Liechtenstein. The scheme, titled “State Aid scheme under the Media Support Act,” aims to preserve media pluralism, promote journalistic quality, and facilitate the dissemination of opinion-shaping media. The aid will be provided in the form of direct grants, with a total budget of CHF 11.04 million, and will be in effect until December 31, 2029. The intensity of the aid will range from 25% to 75%.
The decision references Case No 93440 and Decision No 017/25/COL. The legal basis for the scheme includes the Media Support Act of 2006 (as amended), the Ordinance on Media Support of 2016 (as amended), and the Media Act of 2005 (as amended). The scheme will support the “Information and communication” economic sectors.
The most important aspect of this decision is that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has found the state aid scheme to be compatible with the EEA Agreement, allowing Liechtenstein to proceed with its implementation. This means that media outlets in Liechtenstein can benefit from the direct grants to support their operations and contribute to a diverse media landscape.
