Legislative Review
Directive (EU) 2025/1237 – Wolf Protection Status
This Directive adjusts the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus) within the EU, aligning it with the Bern Convention’s decision to move the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected.” The core change involves amending Directive 92/43/EEC by removing the wolf from Annex IV (strictly protected species) and adjusting its entry in Annex V (protected species). Member States must comply with this Directive by January 15, 2027, but retain the ability to implement stricter protective measures nationally, provided they align with EU Treaties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245 – “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi” PGI
This regulation formally registers “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). This means that only products meeting specific production requirements and originating from the specified region in Türkiye can be marketed under this name within the EU. The registration is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 and comes into effect following a period with no objections.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249 – ‘Kaffeost’ PDO
This regulation registers ‘Kaffeost’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Only cheese produced in a specific region of Sweden according to defined methods can be sold under the name ‘Kaffeost’. The registration is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 and takes effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1215 – Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) for Securities Financing Transactions (SFTs)
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, maintaining the current stable funding factors for certain securities financing transactions (SFTs) with financial customers. It prevents a scheduled increase in stable funding requirements, ensuring continued liquidity in financial markets, particularly for sovereign debt. The EBA is required to report to the Commission every five years on the appropriateness of the stable funding requirement.
CJEU Judgment on Consumer Protection and Unfair Terms in Mortgage Contracts
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Directive (EU) 2025/1237 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus)
Directive (EU) 2025/1237 amends Council Directive 92/43/EEC, specifically concerning the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus). This amendment transposes a decision made by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention, which moved the wolf from Appendix II (strictly protected) to Appendix III (protected) of the Convention. Consequently, the EU is updating its legislation to align with this change, adjusting the level of protection afforded to wolves within the European Union.
The Directive consists of four articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Directive 92/43/EEC, removing the wolf from Annex IV (strictly protected species) and adjusting its entry in Annex V (protected species). Article 2 mandates that Member States implement the necessary laws, regulations, and administrative provisions to comply with this Directive by January 15, 2027, and to inform the Commission accordingly. Article 3 states the entry into force of the Directive, and Article 4 specifies that the Directive is addressed to the Member States. The main change is the adjustment of the wolf’s protection status from “strictly protected” to “protected” under the EU’s nature conservation framework.
The most important provision is Article 1, which directly alters the annexes of Directive 92/43/EEC, effectively changing the legal protection status of the wolf across the European Union. While the wolf is no longer considered a “strictly protected” species at the EU level, Member States retain the freedom to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures for wolves within their national territories, provided these measures are compatible with the EU Treaties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245 of 18 June 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi (PGI)’ in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245 registers “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union’s register. The registration follows the application from Türkiye and is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Since no opposition was received, the geographical indication is now officially protected within the EU.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the geographical indication, and Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force. This regulation implements Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs the registration of geographical indications. It also repeals Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants PGI status to “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi”. This means that the product name is protected in the EU market, and only products that meet the specific requirements associated with this geographical indication and are produced in the specified region can be marketed under that name.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249 of 18 June 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Kaffeost (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249 registers ‘Kaffeost’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. The regulation confirms that the application for registration of the geographical indication ‘Kaffeost’ submitted by Sweden was published, and no objections were received. As a result, the regulation formally adds ‘Kaffeost’ to the list of products protected under the EU’s geographical indication scheme.
The regulation is structured with a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers ‘Kaffeost’ (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which repeals and replaces Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants ‘Kaffeost’ the Protected Designation of Origin status within the EU. This means that the name ‘Kaffeost’ can only be used for cheese that is produced in a specific geographical area and according to specific production methods, as defined in the product specification. This protection helps to preserve the traditional characteristics of ‘Kaffeost’ and prevents its imitation by products from other regions.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1215 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for securities financing transactions under the net stable funding ratio (Text with EEA relevance)
This Regulation (EU) 2025/1215 amends Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, specifically concerning the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) requirements for securities financing transactions (SFTs). The key aim is to maintain the existing stable funding factors for certain transactions with financial customers, preventing an increase that was previously scheduled for 2025. This adjustment ensures the continued liquidity in financial markets, particularly those involving sovereign debt, and avoids creating an uneven playing field in the international SFT market.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Article 510 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, focusing on the monitoring and reporting obligations of the European Banking Authority (EBA) regarding stable funding requirements. It replaces paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the original article. The amendment mandates EBA to report to the Commission every five years on the appropriateness of the stable funding requirement, taking into account international developments and the regulatory treatment of similar transactions in other jurisdictions. Article 2 establishes the entry into force and application date of the amending Regulation, ensuring it takes effect from 29 June 2025.
The most important provision is the deletion of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 510 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which effectively cancels the planned increase of stable funding factors for monies due from financing transactions with financial customers. This maintains the existing, less stringent requirements, which is crucial for credit institutions engaging in SFTs and unsecured transactions with financial customers having a residual maturity of less than six months. The EBA’s ongoing monitoring and reporting on the appropriateness of these stable funding requirements is also a key element to ensure the regulation remains fit for purpose.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2025.GR REAL s. r. o. v PO and RT.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) – Article 7(1) – Consumer credit contract – Contract secured by a charge over immovable property constituting the consumer’s family home – Early recovery of the loan – Extrajudicial sale by auction of that immovable property – National legislation allowing that sale to be made without prior verification, by a court, of the debt concerned – Grounds for the annulment of that sale excluding the existence of unfair terms – Effectiveness of the protection afforded to consumers – Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Case C-351/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding consumer protection in the context of unfair terms in consumer contracts, specifically concerning the extrajudicial sale of a family home due to an early recovery clause in a consumer credit contract.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment addresses whether EU consumer protection laws (Directive 93/13/EEC) prevent national laws from allowing the extrajudicial sale of a consumer’s home, secured by a mortgage, without a court first verifying the debt and considering if the contract contains unfair terms. It also examines whether consumers can challenge such a sale if national law limits the grounds for annulment and whether enforcing a charge based on an unfair term constitutes an unfair commercial practice. The CJEU emphasizes the importance of effective judicial protection for consumers, especially when it concerns their family home.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** Briefly describes the context of the request for a preliminary ruling.
* **Legal Context:** Outlines the relevant EU directives (93/13/EEC and 2005/29/EC) and Slovak national laws.
* **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Details the factual background of the case in Slovakia, the issues raised by the national court, and the specific questions submitted to the CJEU.
* **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the CJEU analyzes each question, providing its interpretation of EU law.
* **Costs:** States that the national court will decide on the costs of the main proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Scope of Directive 93/13:** The CJEU clarifies that Directive 93/13 applies to proceedings where a company that bought a consumer’s home at auction seeks eviction, and the consumer counterclaims, challenging the lawfulness of the transfer due to potentially unfair contract terms.
* **National Legislation:** The CJEU finds that national legislation allowing extrajudicial enforcement of a mortgage on a consumer’s home, even when there’s a pending court application to suspend it and evidence of potentially unfair terms, is incompatible with Directive 93/13.
* **Effective Judicial Protection:** The judgment stresses that consumers must have effective legal remedies to challenge unfair terms, including the possibility to suspend enforcement proceedings and to annul a sale based on such terms.
* **Unfair Commercial Practice:** The CJEU deems the third question inadmissible, concerning whether enforcing a charge based on an unfair term constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
**Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Consumer Rights:** The judgment reinforces the rights of consumers facing enforcement of mortgages based on potentially unfair contract terms.
* **Judicial Review:** It emphasizes the need for judicial review before the extrajudicial sale of a consumer’s home, especially when unfair terms are suspected.
* **National Law Compliance:** It requires Member States to ensure their national laws provide effective remedies for consumers to challenge unfair terms and prevent the loss of their homes without proper judicial oversight.
* **Charter of Fundamental Rights:** The judgment highlights the importance of considering the fundamental right to housing (Article 7 of the Charter) when implementing Directive 93/13.
