Review of the EU legislation for 03/07/2025

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/532 – ICT Subcontracting in the Financial Sector

This regulation lays down specific requirements for financial entities related to the digital operational resilience when they subcontract ICT services supporting critical or important functions. It details what financial entities must determine and assess in such subcontracting arrangements. The core is about managing risks, especially in complex subcontracting chains. It mandates due diligence, rigorous risk assessment, and robust contractual agreements to safeguard the continuity and security of essential financial services.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1282 – Approval of 2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1,2-thiazol-3-one hydrochloride as a Biocidal Active Substance

This regulation approves 2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1,2-thiazol-3-one hydrochloride for use in product-type 6 biocidal products, which act as preservatives during storage. The approval hinges on a safety and efficacy evaluation by ECHA and the Biocidal Products Committee. It sets specific conditions for its use in biocidal products and treated articles, focusing on industrial and professional users and requires specific labelling of treated articles including gloves for paint applications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Imposing Anti-Dumping Duty on Tube and Pipe Fittings

This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings from Korea, Malaysia, and Russia. It follows an expiry review, ensuring continued protection for the Union industry against dumped imports. The act specifies duty rates for specific companies and a residual rate for others. Crucially, importers must include a specific declaration on the commercial invoice to benefit from the individual duty rates.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1289 – Temporary Measures on Potato Imports from Egypt

This regulation introduces temporary measures governing the import of potatoes from Egypt (excluding those for planting) to prevent the introduction of the *Ralstonia solanacearum* bacterium into the EU. It defines strict requirements for production, packaging, and inspection in Egypt before export to the EU, as well as inspection and testing procedures upon import by Member States. Strict adherence to the production, inspection, and packaging requirements outlined in Annex I is crucial for Egyptian producers and exporters.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1291 – Registration of ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ as a Protected Designation of Origin

This regulation registers the designation of origin ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ in the Union register of geographical indications, following an application from Slovakia. Despite objections from Hungary, the Commission deemed the Slovak name sufficiently distinct, granting exclusive rights to producers in the defined Slovak region for wines meeting specified standards. This also allows Slovakia to proceed with the international registration of the appellation of origin.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1316 – Temporary Measures on *Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens* pv. *flaccumfaciens*

This regulation establishes temporary measures to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of *Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens* pv. *flaccumfaciens* within the EU. It mandates annual, risk-based surveys by Member States and introduces import requirements for specified plants and seeds, including detailed origin and testing conditions. These surveys directly affect importers and exporters of the specified plants.

Council Regulation (Euratom) 2025/1304 – Euratom Research and Training Programme 2026-2027

This regulation establishes the Euratom Research and Training Programme for 2026-2027, allocating a budget of EUR 598,346,804 for nuclear research, safety, and fusion energy. It outlines the program’s objectives, including improving nuclear safety and supporting EU policy, and sets rules for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The impact pathways and key indicators for monitoring the program’s performance are detailed in Annex II.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1317 – Fisheries Closure for Common Sole in Areas 7f and 7g (Ireland)

This regulation closes the fishery for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for vessels flying the flag of Ireland due to quota exhaustion. Irish vessels are prohibited from fishing for this stock in these areas from the date specified in the Annex.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1305 – Modification of Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) of Pesticides

This regulation modifies the maximum residue levels (MRLs) of several pesticides in various food and feed products. It sets new MRLs for substances like azoxystrobin in melons, hexythiazox in blackberries, and adjusts levels for isoxaben, tefluthrin and propamocarb in specific products. The inclusion of sodium silver thiosulfate in Annex IV signifies that its use is considered safe under specified conditions, eliminating the need for MRLs.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1193 – Allocation of Fishing Opportunities with Côte d’Ivoire

This regulation allocates fishing opportunities among EU Member States for tuna and other surface-dwelling species in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone under the new Protocol (2025-2029). Article 1 defines which Member States and how many vessels are authorized to fish in the area.

General Court Judgment in Case T-517/23 – Villafrut Srl v EUIPO (JOLi)

The General Court dismissed an action by Villafrut Srl, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that the EU figurative mark “JOLi” registered by Venture Fruit Global Ltd did not create a likelihood of confusion with Villafrut’s earlier national word mark “JOLIFE.” The court emphasized that the assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be global, considering all relevant factors.

General Court Judgment in Case T-715/21 – Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I v European Commission (State Aid)

The General Court dismissed an action by Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I, upholding the Commission’s decision that Spain’s state aid for digital terrestrial television (DTT) was illegal and incompatible with the internal market. The judgment clarifies the criteria for assessing the selectivity of State aid measures, particularly in the context of technological choices for digital broadcasting.

General Court Judgment regarding trade mark “TESTAROSSA”

This judgment concerns a dispute over the EU trade mark “TESTAROSSA,” owned by Ferrari SpA. The General Court annulled a decision revoking Ferrari’s rights to the mark, finding that Ferrari had demonstrated genuine use of the TESTAROSSA mark for both automobiles and parts/accessories. The Court emphasized the importance of considering market practices, the relationship between the trade mark owner and authorized dealers, and the connection between goods and related services in assessing genuine use.

General Court Judgment regarding pension rights

This judgment clarifies that Article 28 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations applies regardless of whether there was an interruption in the individual’s affiliation to the EU pension scheme.

General Court Judgment regarding recruitment discrimination

The core takeaway is that limiting language options in EU recruitment processes can be discriminatory if not objectively justified and proportionate to the actual needs of the job.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/532 of 24 March 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the elements that a financial entity has to determine and assess when subcontracting ICT services supporting critical or important functions

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/532 supplements Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, focusing on the digital operational resilience of the financial sector. It specifies the elements that financial entities must determine and assess when subcontracting ICT services that support critical or important functions. The regulation aims to ensure that financial entities properly manage risks associated with subcontracting, especially concerning long or complex chains of ICT subcontractors. It emphasizes the importance of due diligence, risk assessment, and contractual arrangements to maintain the security and continuity of essential services.

The regulation consists of 7 articles.

* **Article 1** outlines the factors financial entities should consider regarding their overall risk profile and the complexity of their services when assessing ICT subcontracting.
* **Article 2** addresses group applications, ensuring consistent implementation of subcontracting conditions within financial groups.
* **Article 3** details the due diligence and risk assessment requirements for using subcontractors that support critical functions, emphasizing the need for financial entities to evaluate the operational and financial abilities of potential subcontractors.
* **Article 4** specifies the conditions under which ICT services supporting critical functions may be subcontracted, focusing on contractual obligations and monitoring responsibilities.
* **Article 5** covers material changes to subcontracting arrangements, requiring ICT third-party service providers to inform financial entities of any intended changes and allowing financial entities to object to changes that exceed their risk tolerance.
* **Article 6** grants financial entities the right to terminate contracts with ICT third-party service providers under specific circumstances, such as unauthorized subcontracting or unapproved material changes.
* **Article 7** states that the Regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning due diligence and risk assessment (Article 3), the conditions for permissible subcontracting (Article 4), and the handling of material changes to subcontracting arrangements (Article 5). Financial entities must conduct thorough risk assessments, ensure their contracts with ICT providers allow for sufficient oversight of subcontractors, and retain the right to approve or reject changes to subcontracting arrangements. These provisions are crucial for maintaining control over ICT risks and ensuring the operational resilience of financial services.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1282 of 2 July 2025 approving 2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1,2-thiazol-3-one hydrochloride as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1282 approves 2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1,2-thiazol-3-one hydrochloride as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6, which are preservatives for products during storage. The approval is based on the evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the Biocidal Products Committee, which concluded that the substance can be used safely under specific conditions. The regulation aims to ensure the safety and efficacy of biocidal products while setting conditions for their use and the placing on the market of treated articles.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that 2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1,2-thiazol-3-one hydrochloride is approved for use in product-type 6 biocidal products, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex details the specific conditions for the approval, including the minimum degree of purity of the active substance, the approval and expiry dates, and specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products and the placing on the market of treated articles.

The most important provisions for the use of this regulation are in the Annex. It specifies that product assessments must pay particular attention to exposures, risks, and efficacy linked to uses not addressed in the Union-level assessment, with a focus on industrial and professional users. Additionally, it mandates specific labeling instructions for treated articles. For treated articles, the label must include information as per Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. Mixtures (other than paints) for non-professional users must not contain the substance at concentrations that would classify them as skin sensitizers, unless exposure can be avoided through means other than personal protective equipment. Paints containing the substance at a concentration triggering classification as a skin sensitizer category 1A must be supplied with protective gloves, and the label must indicate that gloves must be worn during use.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1309 of 2 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and the Russian Federation following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and the Russian Federation. This regulation follows an expiry review, which is an investigation to determine if the original dumping practices would resume if the existing anti-dumping duties were allowed to expire. The regulation aims to protect the Union industry from unfair competition due to dumped imports.

The regulation is structured as follows: It begins with the legal basis and recitals outlining the background and reasons for the regulation. It details the procedure, including previous investigations, the request for review, initiation, investigation periods, and involvement of interested parties. The regulation defines the product under review, the product concerned, and the like product. It then presents findings on dumping, injury, and the likelihood of recurrence of both, followed by an examination of the Union interest. Finally, it outlines the anti-dumping measures to be imposed.

The main provisions of the act are:

* **Article 1**: Imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of specific tube and pipe fittings from Korea, Malaysia, and Russia. It specifies the duty rates for named companies and a residual rate for all other companies. It also lays down the conditions for the application of individual duty rates, requiring a specific declaration on the commercial invoice.
* **Article 2**: Specifies the date of entry into force of the Regulation.

Compared to previous versions, this regulation maintains the anti-dumping duties on these products from these countries, adjusting them based on the findings of the expiry review.

The most important provisions for practical use are those specifying the anti-dumping duty rates for each country and company, as well as the requirements for the commercial invoice. Importers need to ensure that their invoices include the required declaration to benefit from the individual duty rates, otherwise the “all other companies” rate will apply. Furthermore, the regulation provides a mechanism for new exporting producers to request the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates under certain conditions.

**** This act has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians due to the anti-dumping measures imposed on goods originating from the Russian Federation. These measures may affect trade flows and market access for Ukrainian businesses that compete with or rely on similar products.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1289 of 2 July 2025 setting out temporary measures in respect of tubers of Solanum tuberosum L., other than those intended for planting, originating in Egypt, to prevent the introduction of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. emend. Safni et al. into the Union territory, amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and repealing Implementing Decision 2011/787/EU

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1289.

**Essence of the Act:**

The regulation establishes temporary measures concerning the import of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) from Egypt, excluding those intended for planting, to prevent the introduction of the bacterium *Ralstonia solanacearum* into the EU. It sets out specific requirements for the production, packaging, and inspection of these potatoes in Egypt before they can be imported into the EU. The regulation also outlines inspection, sampling, and testing procedures to be carried out by Member States upon import. Finally, it repeals Implementing Decision 2011/787/EU and amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 to align with current regulations.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The Regulation consists of 12 articles and 3 annexes.

* **Article 1** defines the subject matter and scope, specifying that the regulation applies to tubers of *Solanum tuberosum* L. from Egypt, excluding those for planting, to prevent the spread of *Ralstonia solanacearum*. It also states that this regulation derogates from point 21 of Annex VII to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 concerning the specified pest.
* **Article 2** provides definitions for key terms such as ‘specified pest,’ ‘specified plants,’ ‘pest-free area,’ and ‘production site.’
* **Article 3** outlines the requirements for the introduction of specified plants into the Union, referencing specific requirements detailed in Annex I, Article 6(1), and Article 7.
* **Article 4** specifies the information that must be included in the phytosanitary certificate under the heading ‘Additional declaration,’ including a statement of compliance with this regulation, lot numbers, production site codes, and details of approved packing stations and exporters.
* **Article 5** establishes rules for inspections, sampling, and testing to be carried out by Member States at border control posts or control points.
* **Article 6** requires the NPPO of Egypt to submit lists of approved production sites, exporters, and packing stations to the Commission before the export season begins.
* **Article 7** outlines measures to be taken if the specified pest is confirmed during import controls, including delisting of the production site and prohibition of exports from that site.
* **Article 8** mandates specific labeling requirements for re-packaged potatoes within the Union, indicating their Egyptian origin and the prohibition of planting.
* **Article 9** sets out waste management requirements for professional operators to prevent the spread of the specified pest.
* **Article 10** amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 by replacing the text in Annex VII, point 21, with a reference to this new regulation.
* **Article 11** repeals Implementing Decision 2011/787/EU.
* **Article 12** specifies the entry into force and application dates of the regulation, including a delayed application date for point (b) of Part A of Annex I.

**Annex I** details the specific requirements to be fulfilled for the specified plants in Egypt, including conditions for growing, inspection, packaging, and testing. It also outlines requirements in case of suspicion or confirmed presence of the specified pest in production sites and water sources in Egypt.

**Annex II** outlines specific requirements for surveys of production sites, including inspections, sampling, and testing of crops and water sources.

**Annex III** contains the amendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Requirements for Egyptian Producers and Exporters:** Strict adherence to the production, inspection, and packaging requirements outlined in Annex I is crucial for Egyptian producers and exporters to ensure their potatoes are eligible for export to the EU.
* **NPPO of Egypt Responsibilities:** The National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of Egypt has significant responsibilities, including conducting surveys, maintaining lists of approved production sites, exporters, and packing stations, and taking action in case of suspected or confirmed presence of the specified pest.
* **Member State Responsibilities:** Member States must conduct inspections, sampling, and testing of imported potatoes according to the procedures outlined in Article 5 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1193 to protect the Union territory from the specified pest.
* **Labelling and Waste Management:** Professional operators within the EU must comply with the labelling and waste management requirements to prevent the spread of the specified pest within the Union territory.
* **Temporary Application:** The regulation is temporary and will apply until 30 November 2029, unless extended or amended.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1291 of 2 July 2025 on the registration of the designation of origin TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti in the Union register of geographical indications

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1291 registers the designation of origin ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ in the Union register of geographical indications. This decision follows an application from Slovakia and addresses an objection from Hungary, which argued that the name was too similar to the Hungarian ‘Tokaj/Tokaji’ and could mislead consumers. The Commission, however, found that the Slovak name, with its geographical qualifier and traditional usage, does not create a risk of confusion.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the background and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the designation of origin. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The regulation confirms the registration of the Slovak designation of origin, despite objections from Hungary, based on the assessment of homonymy, traditional usage, and the absence of a risk of consumer confusion.

The most important provision is Article 1, which officially registers ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ as a protected designation of origin within the EU. This registration grants exclusive rights to producers in the specified Slovak region to use the designation for wines meeting the defined production standards. This also allows Slovakia to proceed with the international registration of the appellation of origin AO-45 ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ under the Geneva Act and the preservation of the related priority rights.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1316 of 2 July 2025 on temporary measures to prevent the introduction into, establishment and spread within the Union territory of Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens (Hedges) Collins and Jones, and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1316 introduces temporary measures to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of *Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens* pv. *flaccumfaciens*, a harmful bacterium, within the European Union. It also amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 to include specific requirements for the import of certain plants and seeds.

The regulation consists of 5 articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** defines the subject matter of the Regulation, which is to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of the specified pest within the Union territory.
* **Article 2** provides definitions for ‘specified pest’ (*Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens* pv. *flaccumfaciens*) and ‘specified plants’ (various species of *Glycine, Phaseolus, Vigna,* and *Vicia*).
* **Article 3** mandates Member States to conduct annual, risk-based surveys for the presence of the specified pest on specified plants, including inspections and, if necessary, sampling and testing. Member States must submit the results of these surveys to the Commission and other Member States by April 30th of each year. The requirement to perform annual surveys applies until 30 April 2029.
* **Article 4** states that Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
* **Article 5** specifies the entry into force and application dates of the Regulation.

The Annex amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 by:

* Adding a new point (74.1) to Annex VII, which sets out specific requirements for the import of specified plants from third countries. These requirements include options for the plants to originate from pest-free countries or areas, production sites that meet specific conditions, or to be subjected to sampling and testing.
* Amending Annex XI to include seeds of *Phaseolus lunatus L.*, *Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & H.Ohashi*, *Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper*, *Vigna radiata (L.) R.Wilczek*, and *Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.* in Part A, which lists seeds subject to specific requirements upon introduction into the Union. It also modifies the entry in Part B concerning dried leguminous vegetables for sowing.

The most important provisions for practical use are:

* **The survey requirements (Article 3)**, which obligate Member States to actively monitor for the presence of the specified pest.
* **The import requirements outlined in the amended Annex VII**, which directly affect importers and exporters of the specified plants. These requirements necessitate compliance with specific conditions related to the origin and testing of plants to prevent the introduction of the pest.
* **The inclusion of specific seeds in Part A of Annex XI**, which means that the import of these seeds is subject to particular conditions to prevent the introduction of the specified pest.

Council Regulation (Euratom) 2025/1304 of 23 June 2025 establishing the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2026-2027 complementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation and repealing Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765

Here’s a breakdown of the Council Regulation (Euratom) 2025/1304:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation establishes the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for 2026-2027. It outlines the program’s objectives, budget, and how it will be implemented, all with the goal of advancing nuclear research, improving nuclear safety and security, and fostering the development of fusion energy. The program complements Horizon Europe and aims to support the EU’s policies in the nuclear field.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **General Provisions (Chapter I):**
* **Subject Matter (Article 1):** Defines the scope and purpose of the regulation, establishing the Euratom Programme for 2026-2027.
* **Definitions (Article 2):** Clarifies the terms used within the regulation, aligning with definitions in Regulation (EU) 2021/695 (Horizon Europe).
* **Programme Objectives (Article 3):** Sets the general objective of pursuing research in the nuclear field and training activities, emphasizing nuclear safety, security, and radiation protection. Specific objectives include improving nuclear safety, maintaining expertise, fostering fusion energy, and supporting EU policy.
* **Budget (Article 4):** Allocates a financial envelope of EUR 598,346,804 for the program, distributed among fusion research, nuclear fission, and direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (JRC).
* **Third Countries (Article 5):** Specifies conditions for the association of third countries to the program.
* **Implementation and Funding (Article 6):** Details how the program will be implemented through direct and indirect management, using grants, prizes, procurement, and financial instruments.
* **European Partnerships (Article 7):** Allows for the implementation of parts of the program through European Partnerships.
* **Open Science (Article 8):** Applies the open science provisions from Regulation (EU) 2021/695 to the Euratom Programme.
* **Eligible Actions and Dissemination (Article 9):** Defines eligible actions and sets rules for participation and dissemination of research results, with some derogations regarding intellectual property rights and access to results.
* **Cumulative Funding (Article 10):** Promotes synergy with Horizon Europe and other EU programs, allowing for cumulative funding under certain conditions.

* **Programming, Monitoring, Evaluation and Control (Chapter II):**
* **Work Programmes (Article 11):** Requires the implementation of indirect actions through work programs adopted by the Commission.
* **Monitoring and Reporting (Article 12):** Establishes a system for continuous monitoring and reporting on the program’s progress, with indicators outlined in Annex II.
* **Information and Communication (Article 13):** Requires recipients of funding to acknowledge the source and ensure visibility of EU funding.
* **Evaluation (Article 14):** Mandates timely evaluations of the program to inform decision-making on future initiatives.
* **Audits (Article 15):** Sets out audit rules to ensure an appropriate balance between trust and control.
* **Committee Procedure (Article 16):** Establishes a committee to assist the Commission in implementing the program.
* **Protection of Financial Interests (Article 17):** Ensures that third countries participating in the program grant the necessary rights and access for the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

* **Transitional and Final Provisions (Chapter III):**
* **Repeal (Article 18):** Repeals Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765.
* **Transitional Provisions (Article 19):** Addresses the continuation of actions initiated under the previous regulation.
* **Entry into Force (Article 20):** Specifies that the regulation enters into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

* **Annexes:**
* **Annex I:** Details the activities eligible for funding under the program, including improving nuclear safety, maintaining expertise, fostering fusion energy, and supporting EU policy.
* **Annex II:** Sets out the impact pathways and key indicators for monitoring the program’s performance.

**Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**

* This regulation repeals and replaces Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765, updating the Euratom Research and Training Programme for the period 2026-2027.
* It maintains the key research activities, objectives, and mode of implementation from the previous program while aligning with the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.
* The regulation incorporates recommendations from the interim evaluation of the 2021-2025 Euratom Programme, focusing on maintaining key features and addressing identified priorities.

**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Article 3 (Programme Objectives):** This article is crucial as it defines the scope and priorities of the program. Potential beneficiaries should carefully review these objectives to ensure their projects align with the program’s goals.
* **Article 4 (Budget):** This article outlines the financial resources available for the program and their distribution among different areas of research.
* **Article 5 (Third countries associated to the 2026-2027 Euratom Programme):** This article is important for third countries interested in participating in the programme.
* **Article 9 (Eligible Actions and Dissemination):** This article specifies the types of actions that are eligible for funding and the rules for participation and dissemination of research results.
* **Annex I (Activities):** This annex provides a detailed list of activities eligible for funding, offering further guidance for applicants.
* **Annex II (Impact pathways):** This annex provides a detailed description of indicators for monitoring the program’s performance.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1317 of 26 June 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for vessels flying the flag of Ireland

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1317 establishes a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for vessels flying the flag of Ireland. It addresses the exhaustion of the fishing quota allocated to Ireland for this particular stock in these specific areas. The regulation aims to ensure compliance with the established quotas and prevent overfishing.

The Regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 declares that the fishing quota allocated to Ireland for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for 2025 is deemed exhausted from the date specified in the Annex. Article 2 outlines the prohibitions, specifically banning fishing for the stock by Irish vessels from the date in the Annex, including searching for fish or deploying fishing gear. However, it allows for transshipping, retaining, processing, transferring, caging, fattening, and landing of fish caught before the closure date. It also specifies the procedure for dealing with unintended catches. Article 3 states that the Regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the closing date for the fishery.

The most important provision is Article 2, which explicitly prohibits fishing activities for common sole in areas 7f and 7g by Irish vessels after the specified closing date. This provision directly impacts Irish fishing vessels operating in these areas and requires them to cease fishing for this stock to avoid penalties.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1305 of 2 July 2025 amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for amidosulfuron, azoxystrobin, hexythiazox, isoxaben, picloram, propamocarb, sodium silver thiosulfate and tefluthrin in or on certain products

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1305 modifies Annexes II, III, and IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which concerns maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in food and feed. The regulation adjusts MRLs for several substances, including amidosulfuron, azoxystrobin, hexythiazox, isoxaben, picloram, propamocarb, sodium silver thiosulfate, and tefluthrin, in or on specific agricultural products. These changes are based on evaluations and reasoned opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The regulation amends the MRLs for several pesticides in various products, based on import tolerance requests, modifications of existing MRLs, and reviews of existing MRLs. It sets new MRLs for azoxystrobin in melons and watermelons, for hexythiazox in blackberries and raspberries, and for picloram in specific animal tissues and honey. It also adjusts MRLs for isoxaben in dry beans and dry peas, for tefluthrin in certain root vegetables, and for propamocarb in radishes and Roman rocket/rucola. Additionally, it removes footnotes for amidosulfuron in barley, oat, rye, and wheat, and includes sodium silver thiosulfate in Annex IV, indicating that it does not require MRLs due to its specific conditions of use.

Key provisions include the setting of new MRLs for specific pesticide-product combinations, such as azoxystrobin in melons and watermelons, and the modification of existing MRLs based on EFSA’s risk assessments. The regulation also introduces a new residue definition for picloram in plant products and honey. Furthermore, the inclusion of sodium silver thiosulfate in Annex IV signifies that its use is considered safe under specified conditions, eliminating the need for MRLs.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1193 of 25 April 2025 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Community (2025–2029)

This Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1193 concerns the allocation of fishing opportunities among EU Member States under the new Protocol (2025-2029) implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire. The regulation specifies how many vessels from each Member State are authorized to fish for tuna and other surface-dwelling species in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone. This allocation is necessary for the EU to conduct fishing activities in the region, respecting the terms agreed upon in the Protocol. The regulation ensures the continuity of fishing activities by Union vessels, following the expiration of the previous protocol.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles. Article 1 specifies the allocation of fishing opportunities, dividing the number of authorized vessels by Member State and type of fishing (tuna seiners and surface longliners). Article 2 defines the entry into force and application date of the regulation, aligning it with the provisional application of the Protocol. There are no direct changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text, as the regulation specifically refers to the new Protocol for the period 2025-2029.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly determines which Member States and how many of their vessels can engage in fishing activities within Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone. For instance, it specifies that Spain is allocated 14 tuna seiners and 5 surface longliners, while France is allocated 11 tuna seiners and Portugal 2 surface longliners. This allocation is crucial for the fishing industry in these Member States, as it defines their access to fishing resources in the region.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2025.Villafrut Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark JOLi – Earlier national word mark JOLIFE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-473/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between Villafrut Srl and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the registration of the EU figurative mark “JOLi” by Venture Fruit Global Ltd. Villafrut opposed the registration, arguing that it would create a likelihood of confusion with their earlier national word mark “JOLIFE.” The General Court ultimately dismissed Villafrut’s action, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

The structure of the judgment involves the General Court examining the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision, which had overturned the Opposition Division’s initial finding of a likelihood of confusion. The court assesses the relevant public, the similarity of the goods, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. It also considers the distinctiveness of the earlier mark. The court’s analysis focuses on whether the Board of Appeal correctly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trademarks.

The most important provisions of the act relate to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasizes that this assessment must be global, considering all relevant factors, including the perception of the relevant public and the interdependence of the similarity between the signs and the goods or services. The court also clarifies that the average consumer is deemed to be reasonably well-informed and observant, but their level of attention may vary. Furthermore, the court reiterates that while consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trademark, the elements at the end of relatively short word marks can be equally important.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre élargie) du 2 juillet 2025.#Cellnex Telecom, SA et Retevisión I, SA contre Commission européenne.#Aides d’État – Télévision numérique – Aide au déploiement de la TNT dans les zones éloignées et moins urbanisées (excepté en Castille-La Manche) – Décision déclarant l’aide illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur – Décision d’ouvrir la procédure formelle d’examen – Article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2015/1589 – Droits procéduraux des parties intéressées – Droits de la défense – Sélectivité – Charge de la preuve.#Affaire T-715/21.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of July 2, 2025, in Case T-715/21, Cellnex Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA v European Commission.

The judgment concerns a challenge by Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I against the Commission’s decision that State aid granted by Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television (DTT) in remote and less urbanized areas (excluding Castilla-La Mancha) was illegal and incompatible with the internal market. The Court dismisses the action brought by Cellnex Telecom and Retevisión I, upholding the Commission’s decision.

The judgment addresses several key aspects:
– It examines the procedural rights of interested parties in State aid investigations, particularly regarding the Commission’s obligation to provide a sufficient preliminary assessment of selectivity in its opening decision.
– It clarifies the burden of proof in establishing the selectivity of a State aid measure, emphasizing that the Commission must demonstrate that the measure favors certain undertakings over others in a comparable factual and legal situation.
– It discusses the definition of the reference system for assessing selectivity, noting that it must be based on an objective examination of the content, structure, and concrete effects of the applicable national rules.
– It analyzes the comparability of terrestrial and satellite technologies for digital broadcasting, considering regulatory differences and factual circumstances.

The most important provisions of the act are those related to the criteria for assessing the selectivity of State aid measures, particularly in the context of technological choices for digital broadcasting. The judgment clarifies the Commission’s obligations in demonstrating selectivity and the factors to be considered in comparing different technologies.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 July 2025.Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark TESTAROSSA – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Use by third parties – Nature of the use – Implied consent of the proprietor of the mark – Proof of genuine use – Second-hand cars – Parts and accessories.Case T-1103/23.

This judgment concerns a dispute over the EU trade mark “TESTAROSSA,” owned by Ferrari SpA, specifically regarding its genuine use. Kurt Hesse applied for revocation of the mark for goods in Class 12, including vehicles, parts, and accessories, arguing that Ferrari had not genuinely used the mark within a continuous five-year period. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal upheld Hesse’s application, revoking Ferrari’s rights for all goods in question. Ferrari then appealed to the General Court, which has now annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. The General Court outlines the background of the dispute, including the international registration of the TESTAROSSA mark, the revocation application by Kurt Hesse, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.
2. It identifies the applicable substantive and procedural law, noting that the case is governed by Regulation No 207/2009 and Regulation No 2868/95.
3. The Court addresses Ferrari’s pleas, which include failure to state reasons, infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and errors of assessment regarding the use of the mark for parts and accessories.
4. The Court examines whether Ferrari demonstrated genuine use of the TESTAROSSA mark for automobiles and parts/accessories, considering arguments related to sales of second-hand cars by authorized dealers and the provision of a certification service.
5. The Court analyzes the admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal and assesses whether the Board of Appeal’s reasoning was consistent and adequately justified.

The most important provisions and findings of the judgment are:

* **Genuine Use and Consent:** The Court found that sales of second-hand cars bearing the TESTAROSSA mark by authorized dealers constituted genuine use of the mark with Ferrari’s implied consent. The economic and contractual links between Ferrari and its authorized dealers, combined with common practices in the motor vehicle market, supported the finding of implied consent.
* **Certification Service:** The Court determined that Ferrari’s certification service for second-hand TESTAROSSA cars, which certified their authenticity, was directly linked to sales of these cars and constituted genuine use of the mark. The fact that the service was provided under the Ferrari mark did not negate the genuine use of the TESTAROSSA mark, as both marks were used jointly and consistently with market practices.
* **Parts and Accessories:** The Court held that the Board of Appeal erred in rejecting evidence related to the use of the TESTAROSSA mark for parts and accessories. The Court found that the use of the mark for genuine Testarossa parts and accessories by authorized dealers demonstrated Ferrari’s implied consent. Additionally, the Court stated that the use of the mark for parts and accessories could also constitute use of the mark for automobiles, as these parts are integral to the cars.
* **Failure to State Reasons and Contradictory Reasoning:** The Court found that the Board of Appeal’s decision was vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons regarding the admissibility of evidence and by contradictory reasoning, as the same evidence was rejected as inadmissible in Ferrari’s appeal but examined substantively in Hesse’s appeal.

In conclusion, the General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that Ferrari had demonstrated genuine use of the TESTAROSSA mark for both automobiles and parts/accessories. The Court emphasized the importance of considering market practices, the relationship between the trade mark owner and authorized dealers, and the connection between goods and related services in assessing genuine use.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#DB e.a. contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Réformes du statut de 2004 et de 2014 – Mesures transitoires relatives à certaines modalités de calcul des droits à pension – Article 28 de l’annexe XIII du statut – Agents temporaires devenus fonctionnaires – Taux annuel d’acquisition des droits à pension – Âge de départ à la retraite – Champ d’application de la loi – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-152/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union regarding a dispute between several plaintiffs (DB, DC, and DD) and the European Parliament concerning their pension rights. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission intervened in support of the Parliament.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses the application of transitional measures related to pension calculations for EU officials, specifically concerning temporary agents who later became permanent officials. It focuses on the interpretation of Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which deals with actuarial adjustments to pension rights. The plaintiffs contested decisions by the Parliament regarding their retirement age and annual rate of pension accrual, arguing that Article 28 was incorrectly applied to their situations. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, upholding the Parliament’s decisions.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** It outlines the claims of the plaintiffs, seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decisions regarding their pension rights.
2. **Legal Framework:** It describes the relevant legal provisions, including Article 77 of the Staff Regulations (before and after the 2004 and 2014 reforms), Articles 39 and 109 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS), and Articles 21, 22, and 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. These articles concern pension entitlements, retirement ages, and transitional measures for staff employed before the reforms.
3. **Facts of the Case:** It details the employment history of each plaintiff, including their periods as temporary agents and later as permanent officials.
4. **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the plaintiffs’ arguments that Article 28 of Annex XIII should not apply to them, as they had no interruption in their affiliation to the EU pension scheme. The Parliament, supported by the Council and Commission, argued for the correct application of Article 28.
5. **The Court’s Reasoning:** The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, stating that the clear wording of Article 28 does not require an interruption in pension scheme affiliation for it to apply. The Court also addressed the plaintiffs’ claim of a violation of the principle of equal treatment, finding that the different treatment was objectively justified.
6. **Decision:** The Court dismissed the action and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* **Article 77 of the Staff Regulations:** This article defines the general rules for pension entitlements, including retirement age and the annual accrual rate. The 2004 and 2014 reforms modified this article, raising the retirement age and lowering the accrual rate.
* **Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations:** This annex contains transitional provisions for staff in service before the 2004 and 2014 reforms.
* **Article 28 of Annex XIII:** This article is central to the case. It provides for an actuarial adjustment to pension rights for temporary agents who become permanent officials after the reforms, to account for the change in retirement age. The plaintiffs argued that this article should only apply to those with an interruption in their pension affiliation, but the Court rejected this interpretation.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important provision is **Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations**. This article determines how the pension rights of temporary agents who become permanent officials are adjusted to account for changes in retirement age introduced by the 2004 and 2014 reforms. The judgment clarifies that this article applies regardless of whether there was an interruption in the individual’s affiliation to the EU pension scheme. This is particularly relevant for individuals who transitioned from temporary agent to permanent official status during the relevant periods.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#Gianfranco Emanuele et Dorte Hansen contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Réformes du statut de 2004 et de 2014 – Mesures transitoires relatives à certaines modalités de calcul des droits à pension – Article 28 de l’annexe XIII du statut – Agents temporaires devenus fonctionnaires – Taux annuel d’acquisition des droits à pension – Âge de départ à la retraite – Champ d’application de la loi – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-228/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between Gianfranco Emanuele and Dorte Hansen, the applicants, and the European Parliament, the defendant, concerning their pension rights as former temporary agents who became officials. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission intervened in support of the Parliament.

The judgment concerns the annulment of the European Parliament’s decisions rejecting the applicants’ request to apply Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to determine their retirement age and the annual rate of acquisition of their pension rights.

Here’s a breakdown of the judgment’s structure and key provisions:

* **Background:** The case revolves around the reforms of the Staff Regulations in 2004 and 2014, which modified the pension scheme for EU officials. These reforms included changes to the retirement age and the annual accrual rate for pension rights. The applicants, who were temporary agents before becoming officials, argue that certain transitional provisions should apply to them.
* **Legal Framework:** The judgment outlines the relevant legal provisions, including Article 77 of the Staff Regulations (before and after the 2004 and 2014 reforms), Articles 39 and 109 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS), and especially Articles 21, 22, and 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which contain transitional measures.
* **Dispute:** The applicants argue that Article 28 of Annex XIII should not apply to them because they have been continuously affiliated with the EU pension scheme (RPIUE). They claim that Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII should be the sole provisions applicable to their situation.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The Court rejects the applicants’ arguments. It finds that Article 28 of Annex XIII applies to temporary agents whose contracts were in force before the reforms and who were later appointed as officials, regardless of whether they had an interruption in their affiliation with the RPIUE. The Court emphasizes that the wording of Article 28 is clear and does not include a condition of interrupted affiliation.
* **Equality of Treatment:** The applicants also argue that Article 28 violates the principle of equal treatment. The Court rejects this argument as well, finding that the different treatment is objectively justified by the differences between officials and other staff, the need to ensure the actuarial balance of the pension scheme, and the budgetary constraints faced by the EU.
* **Decision:** The Court dismisses the action, ruling that the Parliament’s decisions were lawful. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

The most important provisions for practical use are the interpretations of Articles 21, 22, and 28 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations. The Court clarifies that Article 28 applies to former temporary agents who became officials after the 2004 or 2014 reforms, even if they had no interruption in their pension affiliation. This interpretation affects how their pension rights are calculated, particularly regarding the actuarial adjustment for the period they were temporary agents.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2025.Lunar Outpost Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark LUNAR OUTPOST – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-513/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the application for the EU word mark “LUNAR OUTPOST” by Lunar Outpost Inc. The EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) rejected the application based on the grounds that the mark is descriptive and lacks distinctive character. The General Court upholds the EUIPO’s decision, finding that the mark “LUNAR OUTPOST” would be understood by the relevant public as descriptive of the intended purpose of the goods and services for which registration was sought, specifically those related to lunar exploration and settlement.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It starts with an introduction outlining the action brought by Lunar Outpost Inc. against the EUIPO’s decision. It then details the background of the dispute, including the application for the EU trade mark, the goods and services for which registration was sought (Classes 9, 12, and 39), the examiner’s rejection, and the subsequent appeal. The judgment then outlines the forms of order sought by both parties (Lunar Outpost Inc. seeking annulment and EUIPO seeking dismissal). The main body of the judgment addresses the two pleas in law put forward by the applicant: (i) infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 (descriptive character) and (ii) infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctive character). The court rejects both pleas and dismisses the action. Finally, it addresses the costs, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are the interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The court emphasizes that a mark can be refused registration if it is descriptive of even one characteristic of the goods or services. It also clarifies that the descriptiveness of a mark is assessed based on how the relevant public perceives it, considering their level of knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, the judgment highlights that the potential future use of the goods and services in a specific environment (in this case, a lunar settlement) can be a relevant factor in determining the descriptive character of the mark.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#UV e.a. contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Réformes du statut de 2004 et de 2014 – Mesures transitoires relatives à certaines modalités de calcul des droits à pension – Article 28 de l’annexe XIII du statut – Agents temporaires devenus fonctionnaires – Taux annuel d’acquisition des droits à pension – Âge de départ à la retraite – Champ d’application de la loi – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-253/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on July 2, 2025, in Case T-253/24. The case concerns a dispute between several EU civil servants (UV, UW, UY, and UZ) and the European Commission regarding the calculation of their pension rights. The civil servants contested a decision by the Commission that applied specific transitional provisions related to pension calculations following the 2004 and 2014 reforms of the Staff Regulations. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union intervened in support of the Commission.

The judgment addresses the application of Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which provides transitional measures for temporary staff who later become permanent officials, specifically concerning the actuarial adjustment of pension rights. The civil servants argued that Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII should apply to them instead, which relate to the age of retirement and the annual rate of pension accrual. They claimed that Article 28 should only apply to staff who had a break in their affiliation to the EU pension scheme (RPIUE).

The Court rejected the civil servants’ arguments, ruling that Article 28 of Annex XIII applies to temporary agents whose contract was ongoing before May 1, 2004, or January 1, 2014, and who were subsequently appointed as officials, regardless of whether they had a break in their pension scheme affiliation. The Court also rejected the claim that this interpretation violated the principle of equal treatment. The Court upheld the Commission’s decision, finding no legal error in applying Article 28 to the civil servants’ situation.

The main provisions of the act are:
– **Article 77 of the Staff Regulations**: Establishes the conditions for entitlement to an old-age pension, including the minimum age and the annual accrual rate.
– **Article 39 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS)**: Refers to Article 77 of the Staff Regulations for temporary agents’ pension rights.
– **Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (2004 Reform)**: Modified the Staff Regulations and CEOS, raising the retirement age and adjusting the annual accrual rate.
– **Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 (2014 Reform)**: Further modified the Staff Regulations and CEOS, again raising the retirement age and adjusting the annual accrual rate.
– **Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations**: Includes transitional measures for officials and other staff in service before the 2004 or 2014 reforms.
– **Article 21**: Specifies the annual accrual rate for officials who entered service before May 1, 2004, or between May 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013.
– **Article 22**: Sets the retirement age for officials who entered service before January 1, 2014.
– **Article 28**: Concerns the actuarial adjustment of pension rights for temporary agents who become officials after May 1, 2004, or January 1, 2014.

The most important provisions for its use are those concerning the transitional arrangements in Annex XIII, in particular Article 28. This article ensures that individuals who transitioned from temporary agent to official status have their pension rights adjusted to account for changes in the retirement age, thus protecting their acquired rights and legitimate expectations. The judgment clarifies that this article applies regardless of any interruption in pension affiliation, which is a key point for interpreting its scope.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre élargie) du 2 juillet 2025 (Extraits).#Royaume d’Espagne contre Commission européenne.#Aides d’État – Télévision numérique – Aide au déploiement de la TNT dans les zones éloignées et moins urbanisées (excepté en Castille-La Manche) – Décision déclarant l’aide illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur – Décision d’ouvrir la procédure formelle d’examen – Article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2015/1589 – Notion de “régime d’aides” – Sélectivité – Charge de la preuve – Neutralité technologique – Avantage – Enrichissement sans cause.#Affaire T-489/21.

Here’s a breakdown of the Tribunal’s judgment in Case T-489/21, focusing on its key aspects:

**1. Essence of the Act**

This Tribunal’s judgment concerns a challenge by the Kingdom of Spain against the European Commission’s decision that Spain provided illegal and incompatible state aid related to the deployment of Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) in remote and less urbanized areas (excluding Castilla-La Mancha). The Tribunal dismisses Spain’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision. The core issue revolves around whether public funding for DTT deployment unfairly favored terrestrial television operators over other technologies, like satellite.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions**

The judgment is structured around Spain’s eight pleas (arguments) for annulling the Commission’s decision. These pleas cover a range of issues, including:

* **Procedural Rights:** Alleged violations of Spain’s rights of defense, including the right to be heard.
* **Exceeding Authority:** Claim that the Commission overstepped its bounds in implementing a previous Court of Justice ruling.
* **Reasonable Time:** Alleged violation of the principle of good administration due to the length of the Commission’s investigation.
* **Selectivity:** Challenges to the Commission’s analysis of whether the aid selectively favored certain undertakings.
* **Aid Scheme:** Whether the measures in question constituted an “aid scheme.”
* **Quantification of Advantage:** Allegations that the criteria for calculating the benefit were unclear.
* **Identification of Beneficiaries:** Disputes over who the actual beneficiaries of the aid were.
* **Compatibility:** Challenges to the Commission’s assessment of whether the aid was compatible with the internal market.

The Tribunal systematically addresses and rejects each of Spain’s arguments.

**3. Main Provisions and Important Aspects**

While the entire judgment is important, here are some key provisions and aspects to note:

* **Selectivity Analysis:** The judgment delves deeply into the concept of “selectivity” in state aid law. It confirms the Commission’s approach of identifying the relevant “reference system” (in this case, the broadcasting sector) and then determining whether the Spanish measures deviated from that system by favoring terrestrial television operators.
* **Technological Neutrality:** A central theme is whether the Spanish measures violated the principle of technological neutrality. The Tribunal upholds the Commission’s view that the public funding scheme effectively favored terrestrial technology over other technologies capable of delivering digital television services.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment clarifies that the Commission bears the burden of proving the existence of state aid, including selectivity. However, it also notes that Member States have a duty to cooperate and provide the Commission with the information necessary to assess the measures in question.
* **Definition of “Aid Scheme”:** The judgment discusses the criteria for determining whether a set of measures constitutes an “aid scheme,” as opposed to individual aid grants.
* **Recovery of Aid:** The judgment confirms the Commission’s power to order the recovery of illegal and incompatible state aid.
* **Rights of Defence:** The judgment scrutinizes Spain’s claims that its procedural rights were violated, ultimately rejecting those claims.

This judgment provides valuable insights into the application of state aid rules in the context of digital infrastructure deployment and the principle of technological neutrality.

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2025.PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v European Commission.Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Request for individual examination – Unduly burdensome – Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint – Article 3(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Article 9(2) and (4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Injury analysis – Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Union interest analysis – Manifest error of assessment – Error of law.Case T-187/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an appeal against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia. The case revolves around the challenge by two Indonesian exporting producers, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya, against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111, which imposed these duties. The applicants raised concerns regarding the rejection of their request for individual examination, the continuation of the investigation despite the withdrawal of the complaint, and the overall legality of the anti-dumping duties.

The judgment is structured around two primary pleas raised by the applicants. The first plea contests the rejection of their request for an individual examination to determine their dumping margin, arguing that the Commission wrongly deemed it unduly burdensome. This plea is further divided into three parts, challenging the grounds for rejection based on complexity, the fact that it was the only remaining request, and an alleged manifest error of assessment by the Commission. The second plea challenges the continuation of the investigation and the imposition of anti-dumping duties after the initial complaint was withdrawn. This plea is also divided into three parts, alleging misinterpretation of the relevant regulations, unlawful continuation of the investigation by not considering the complaint’s withdrawal in the injury analysis, and the Commission’s incorrect conclusion that the Union interest required action despite the withdrawal.

The main provisions of the act discussed in the judgment are related to the EU’s anti-dumping regulations, specifically Regulation (EU) 2016/1036. The judgment interprets and applies articles such as Article 17(3) concerning individual examination requests, Article 9(1) regarding the termination of proceedings after a complaint is withdrawn, Article 3(2) concerning injury analysis, and Article 21(1) regarding the Union interest analysis. The judgment also references the Anti-Dumping Agreement under the WTO framework, emphasizing the need to interpret EU regulations in light of international obligations. The court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the Commission’s decision to impose anti-dumping duties.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2025.Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark VITAE – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use.Case T-402/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding an EU trade mark dispute. Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (applicant) sought to annul a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that partially upheld the registration of the EU word mark “VITAE” held by Grande Vitae GmbH (intervener). The core issue was whether Grande Vitae GmbH had genuinely used the “VITAE” mark for wines within a continuous five-year period, as required by EU law to maintain the trade mark registration.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: The General Court dismissed the action brought by Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU, upholding EUIPO’s decision that Grande Vitae GmbH had demonstrated genuine use of the “VITAE” mark for wines. The court addressed the admissibility of new evidence presented for the first time before the General Court, ruling it inadmissible. It then examined the substance of the case, focusing on whether EUIPO correctly assessed the proof of genuine use of the contested mark, particularly concerning the time and extent of use.

The most important provisions of the act are related to Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, concerning the revocation of an EU trade mark due to lack of genuine use, and Article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, supplementing Regulation 2017/1001. The court emphasized that genuine use must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence, not probabilities or suppositions. It clarified that use during a sufficient period within the five-year timeframe is adequate and that the assessment of genuine use involves considering all relevant factors, including the nature of the goods, the characteristics of the market, and the scale and frequency of use. The court also highlighted that the purpose of the genuine use requirement is not to assess commercial success or to restrict trade mark protection to large-scale commercial use.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre élargie) du 2 juillet 2025 (Extraits).#Royaume d’Espagne contre Commission européenne.#Aides d’État – Télévision numérique – Aide au déploiement de la TNT dans les zones éloignées et moins urbanisées (excepté en Castille-La Manche) – Décision déclarant l’aide illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur – Décision d’ouvrir la procédure formelle d’examen – Article 6, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2015/1589 – Notion de “régime d’aides” – Sélectivité – Charge de la preuve – Neutralité technologique – Avantage – Enrichissement sans cause.#Affaire T-489/21.

This is an analysis of the Tribunal’s judgment in Case T-489/21, *Kingdom of Spain v. Commission*.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns a dispute between the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission regarding state aid provided by Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television (DTT) in remote and less urbanized areas. The Tribunal (General Court) dismisses Spain’s action for annulment of the Commission’s decision, which declared the aid illegal and incompatible with the internal market. The core issue revolves around whether the aid was selectively advantageous to terrestrial television operators over other technologies, such as satellite.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured around Spain’s eight pleas for annulment of the Commission’s decision. These pleas cover a range of procedural and substantive issues, including:

* Violation of the rights of defense.
* Violation of Article 266 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) regarding the execution of a previous Court judgment.
* Violation of the principle of good administration.
* Errors in the Commission’s analysis of the selectivity of the aid.
* Misclassification of the aid scheme.
* Inconsistencies in the criteria for recovering the aid.
* Lack of advantage for the identified beneficiaries.
* Errors in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.

The Tribunal systematically addresses and rejects each of these pleas. The judgment refers to numerous previous decisions and regulations, including Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and Article 107 TFEU, to support its reasoning.

**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

* **Selectivity Analysis:** The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the criteria for determining whether state aid is selectively advantageous. It clarifies the need to identify the relevant reference system and to demonstrate that the aid in question favors certain undertakings over others in a comparable situation.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment confirms that the Commission bears the burden of proving the existence of state aid, including its selective nature.
* **Rights of Defence:** The judgment examines the scope of the rights of defense in state aid procedures, including the right to be heard and the right to access relevant information.
* **Definition of “Aid Scheme”:** The judgment clarifies the definition of an “aid scheme” and the conditions under which a measure can be classified as such.
* **Neutrality of Technology:** The judgment touches on the principle of technological neutrality, emphasizing that state aid measures should not unduly favor one technology over another.

The judgment reinforces the Commission’s power to scrutinize state aid measures and to ensure that they do not distort competition in the internal market. It also provides valuable guidance on the application of state aid rules in the context of the digital transition.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre élargie) du 2 juillet 2025.#Brasserie Nationale (anc. Brasseries Funck-Bricher et Bofferding) et Munhowen SA contre Commission européenne.#* Langue de procédure : le français. Concurrence – Concentrations – Marché de la distribution en gros de boissons – Article 22 du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 – Demande de renvoi à la Commission émanant d’une autorité de la concurrence d’un État membre non compétente selon la législation nationale pour examiner l’opération de concentration – Décision de la Commission d’examiner l’opération de concentration – Délai de présentation de la demande de renvoi – Notion de “communication” – Information des entreprises concernées sur la demande de renvoi – Régime linguistique – Délai de notification de la décision de la Commission d’examiner l’opération de concentration – Affectation du commerce entre États membres – Menace d’affectation significative de la concurrence – Caractère approprié du renvoi».#Affaire T-289/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of the European Union regarding a case (T-289/24) between Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen SA (the applicants) and the European Commission (the defendant), supported by the Autorité de concurrence du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) as interveners. The case concerns a decision by the Commission to examine the acquisition of Boissons Heintz Sàrl by Brasserie Nationale, following a request from the Luxembourg competition authority.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses the legality of the European Commission’s decision to investigate the acquisition of Boissons Heintz Sàrl by Brasserie Nationale, a merger in the wholesale beverage distribution market. The applicants, Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen SA, challenged the Commission’s decision, arguing that the Commission incorrectly accepted a referral request from the Luxembourg competition authority. The General Court ultimately dismissed the applicant’s claims, upholding the Commission’s decision to investigate the merger.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** Details the parties involved, the concentration at issue (acquisition of Boissons Heintz by Brasserie Nationale), and the referral request made by the Luxembourg competition authority (ACL) to the Commission.
2. **Decision Under Appeal:** Summarizes the Commission’s decision to accept the referral request, outlining its reasoning regarding the timeliness of the request, market definitions, effects on trade between Member States, and the threat to competition.
3. **Arguments of the Parties:** Presents the arguments made by Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen SA against the Commission’s decision, as well as the Commission’s defense, supported by AB InBev and the ACL.
4. **Legal Analysis:** The Court systematically addresses each of the eight grounds of appeal raised by the applicants, including:

* Violation of language regulations.
* Failure to respect the deadline for the referral request.
* Failure to respect the deadline for informing parties of the referral request.
* Late communication of the decision.
* Violation of the rights of defense and principles of equality.
* Lack of impact on trade between Member States.
* Lack of a threat to competition in Luxembourg.
* Inappropriateness of the referral.
5. **Decision:** The Court rejects the appeal and orders the applicants to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment clarifies the interpretation of “communication” in the context of merger referrals, stating it requires active transmission of information enabling the competition authority to assess the conditions for a referral.
* It confirms the Commission’s discretion in accepting referral requests and its ability to assess the appropriateness of a referral based on factors such as the lack of a national merger control regime.
* The judgment reinforces the importance of respecting linguistic rights in EU administrative procedures but clarifies that not every violation of language rules automatically invalidates a procedure.
* The Court emphasizes that the Commission is required to conduct a prospective analysis of the effects of a concentration on trade between Member States.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* **Definition of “Communication”:** The judgment provides a clear definition of what constitutes “communication” of a concentration to a Member State’s competition authority, which triggers the deadline for requesting a referral to the Commission. This is crucial for companies considering mergers that might fall below the thresholds for EU-level review.
* **Commission’s Discretion:** The judgment confirms the Commission’s broad discretion in deciding whether to accept a referral request, even if the legal conditions are met. This highlights the importance of understanding the Commission’s priorities and policies in merger control.
* **Impact on Trade Between Member States:** The judgment reiterates the importance of demonstrating a potential impact on trade between Member States for a referral to be valid. This requires an analysis of how the merger might affect cross-border trade flows and market access.
* **Language Rights:** The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to language regulations in EU administrative procedures, but clarifies that a violation does not automatically invalidate the procedure unless it causes prejudice to the parties involved.

Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#Arkema France contre Commission européenne.#Politique commerciale – Dumping – Importations d’acide gras originaire d’Indonésie – Droit antidumping définitif – Article 9, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) 2016/1036 – Poursuite de l’enquête après le retrait de la plainte – Article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2016/1036 – Article 3, paragraphe 6, du règlement 2016/1036 – Analyse du préjudice – Article 21, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2016/1036 – Analyse de l’intérêt de l’Union – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Erreur de droit.#Affaire T-165/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-165/23, Arkema France v. European Commission, dated 2 July 2025. The judgment concerns an action for annulment brought by Arkema France against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111, which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia. The General Court dismisses Arkema France’s action.

The case revolves around the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of fatty acids from Indonesia. Arkema France, a user of these fatty acids, challenged the Commission’s decision to impose these duties, arguing that the Commission made several errors in its assessment. The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background of the Dispute:** This section outlines the facts that led to the legal action, including the anti-dumping procedure initiated following a complaint, the investigation period, and the Commission’s findings.
2. **Conclusions of the Parties:** This section summarizes the arguments made by Arkema France (the applicant) and the European Commission (the defendant).
3. **Law:** This is the main part of the judgment, where the General Court addresses the legal issues raised by Arkema France. It examines the admissibility of the action and then addresses the substance of the claims.

The main provisions and changes are:

* **Admissibility:** The Commission argued that Arkema France was not directly concerned by the regulation and therefore lacked standing to bring the action. The Court decided to examine the substance of the case without ruling on admissibility.
* **Substance:** Arkema France raised three main pleas:
1. Violation of Article 9(1) and Article 21(1) of the basic regulation and manifest error in assessing the Union interest.
2. Violation of the general principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations.
3. Violation of Article 1(1) and Article 3(6) of the basic regulation due to the absence of injury caused by dumping.

The most important provisions of the act are:

* **Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation:** This article concerns the possibility of terminating an anti-dumping procedure following the withdrawal of a complaint, unless such termination is not in the Union’s interest.
* **Article 21(1) of the Basic Regulation:** This article relates to the assessment of the Union’s interest in imposing anti-dumping measures.
* **Article 1(1) and Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation:** These articles concern the conditions for imposing anti-dumping duties, including the existence of dumping, injury to the Union industry, and a causal link between the two.

The General Court rejected all of Arkema France’s pleas and dismissed the action. The Court found that the Commission had not made any manifest errors in its assessment and that the anti-dumping duties were justified.

Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#ZY contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Recrutement – Avis de concours – Concours général EPSO/AD/394/21 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Régime linguistique – Exception d’illégalité – Limitation du choix de la seconde langue du concours à l’anglais ou au français – Discrimination fondée sur la langue – Intérêt du service.#Affaire T-618/23.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the EU Tribunal regarding a competition for recruiting administrators in the field of anti-fraud investigations. The core issue is whether limiting the choice of the second language in the competition to English or French constitutes discrimination based on language. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant, finding that the language restriction was illegal.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The judgment addresses a case brought by ZY against the European Commission, specifically challenging the decision not to include her on a reserve list for administrators (AD 7) in anti-fraud investigations.
* The case revolves around a general competition (EPSO/AD/394/21) where candidates had to master two EU official languages. Language 1 was for multiple-choice tests, and Language 2 (English or French) was for the talent assessment stage, assessment center tests, and communication with EPSO.
* ZY, whose native language is Italian, chose Italian as Language 1 and English as Language 2. After successfully passing the initial stages, she was invited to the assessment center but was later informed that she would not be placed on the reserve list due to insufficient scores.
* The applicant raised seven pleas, one of which was the illegality of the competition notice, because it limited the choice of the second language to English and French.
* The Tribunal examines the admissibility of the plea of illegality and then its merits.
* The Tribunal upholds the plea of illegality and annuls the contested decision.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment focuses on the legality of limiting the choice of the second language to English or French. The applicant argued this was discriminatory and violated EU regulations on linguistic policy.
* The Tribunal acknowledges that while the EU institutions have discretion in organizing their services, this is limited by Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, which prohibits discrimination, including linguistic discrimination.
* The judgment states that limiting the choice of a second language for candidates in a competition to a restricted number of languages, excluding other official languages, constitutes discrimination based on language, which is prohibited in principle under Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations.
* The Tribunal finds that the Commission did not adequately demonstrate that the language restriction was justified by the needs of the service. While the notice mentioned the need for immediately operational staff, it did not prove that the specific roles required English or French to the exclusion of other official languages.
* The Tribunal notes that the description of the duties in the competition notice did not sufficiently establish that only English and French would allow the selected candidates to be immediately operational.

**Most Important Provisions:**

* The core takeaway is that limiting language options in EU recruitment processes can be discriminatory if not objectively justified and proportionate to the actual needs of the job.
* The judgment emphasizes that EU institutions must provide concrete evidence to justify language restrictions based on the specific requirements of the position.
* The ruling reinforces the principle that all official EU languages should be treated equally in recruitment processes unless a clear and demonstrable need exists for specific languages.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 July 2025.Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark TESTAROSSA – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Use by third parties – Nature of the use – Implied consent of the proprietor of the mark – Proof of genuine use – Scale toy land motor vehicles.Case T-1104/23.

This judgment concerns a dispute over the EU trade mark “TESTAROSSA,” owned by Ferrari SpA, specifically regarding its use for “scale toy land motor vehicles.” The case was brought before the General Court after the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal revoked Ferrari’s rights to the mark for these goods due to a lack of genuine use. The General Court partially annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that Ferrari had demonstrated genuine use of the mark through licensing agreements with third-party manufacturers of scale model vehicles.

The structure of the judgment involves an assessment of whether Ferrari genuinely used the TESTAROSSA mark for scale model vehicles during the relevant period. The court examines arguments related to failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. It considers evidence such as catalogues and packaging featuring the mark, as well as the presence of “Ferrari Official Licensed Product” wording. The court also discusses the concept of implied consent regarding third-party use of the mark.

The most important provision is the court’s interpretation of “genuine use” in the context of licensed products. The court found that the use of the TESTAROSSA mark by third-party manufacturers, combined with the “Ferrari Official Licensed Product” designation, demonstrated that the mark was being used to indicate the commercial origin of the scale model vehicles, thus fulfilling its essential function. The court also clarified that the absence of “TM” or “®” symbols does not negate genuine use and that Ferrari’s implied consent to the third-party use was evident through its awareness and lack of objection to such use.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 2 juillet 2025.#CR contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Réformes du statut de 2004 et de 2014 – Mesures transitoires relatives à certaines modalités de calcul des droits à pension – Article 28 de l’annexe XIII du statut – Agents contractuels devenus fonctionnaires – Taux annuel d’acquisition des droits à pension – Âge de départ à la retraite – Champ d’application de la loi – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-131/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over pension rights of an EU official. The core of the dispute concerns the calculation of the official’s pension rights, specifically the applicable annual accrual rate and retirement age, taking into account reforms to the Staff Regulations in 2004 and 2014. The applicant challenges the European Commission’s decision, arguing that certain transitional provisions were incorrectly applied to her case.

The judgment addresses the application of Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which provides transitional measures for temporary agents who become officials. The applicant argues that Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII should apply instead, as she had no interruption in her contributions to the EU pension scheme (RPIUE). The Court dismisses this argument, stating that Article 28 applies to those who were agents with a contract in force on specific dates and were later appointed as officials, regardless of contribution continuity. The Court also rejects the claim of unequal treatment, finding that the differentiation is justified by the need to maintain the actuarial balance of the pension scheme and is not arbitrary.

The main provisions of the act are:
– **Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations**: This article is central to the case, outlining transitional provisions for calculating pension rights of temporary agents who became officials. It provides for an actuarial adjustment to pension rights acquired as a temporary agent, considering changes in the retirement age.
– **Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations**: These articles define the annual accrual rate and retirement age for officials who entered service before specific dates (May 1, 2004, and January 1, 2014). The applicant argued these should apply to her situation.
– **Reforms of 2004 and 2014**: These reforms modified the Staff Regulations, including changes to the retirement age and accrual rates for pension rights. The transitional provisions in Annex XIII aim to mitigate the impact of these reforms on existing staff.
– **Article 77 of the Staff Regulations**: This article defines the general rules for pension rights of EU officials, including the retirement age and accrual rate. Annex XIII provides exceptions to these general rules for certain categories of staff.

Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Community (2025-2029)

Here’s a breakdown of the Protocol on the Implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between Côte d’Ivoire and the European Union:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This Protocol sets the rules for EU vessels to fish in Côte d’Ivoire’s waters for the period of 2025-2029. It defines the types and number of EU vessels allowed, the financial contribution the EU will make, and how this money will support Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector. The Protocol also covers technical aspects like catch reporting, monitoring, and ensuring fair labor practices for fishers.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Definitions (Article 1):** Clarifies terms used within the Protocol, ensuring consistent interpretation.
* **Objective (Article 2):** States the Protocol’s aim is to implement the broader Fisheries Partnership Agreement.
* **Period of Application (Article 3):** The Protocol is valid for four years from its signature.
* **Financial Contribution (Article 8):**
* The EU will pay a total of EUR 740,000 per year.
* EUR 305,000 is for access to Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone, based on a reference tonnage of 6,100 tonnes per year.
* EUR 435,000 is earmarked for supporting Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries policy.
* If EU vessels catch more than the reference tonnage, the EU will pay an additional EUR 50 per tonne.
* **Sectoral Support (Article 9):** Details how the EU’s financial contribution will be used to support Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector, including:
* Improving scientific knowledge of fish stocks.
* Developing sustainable small-scale fishing and aquaculture.
* Supporting fishing communities through training and employment.
* Combating illegal fishing.
* **Fishing Opportunities (Article 7):** Sets limits on the number of EU vessels allowed to fish:
* 25 freezer tuna seiners
* 7 surface longliners
* **Technical and Scientific Cooperation (Article 10):** Promotes collaboration on sustainable fishing practices and scientific assessments.
* **Monitoring and Control (Various Articles and Annex):** Establishes rules for:
* Catch reporting (including electronic reporting systems – ERS).
* Vessel monitoring (VMS).
* Inspections.
* Observer programs.
* Handling infringements.
* **Employment of Fishers (Chapter VI of Annex):** Requires operators of Union vessels to take on ACP fishers, aiming for a rate of 30% ACP fishers across all seiners, with the majority being Ivorian. Sets out requirements for working conditions, work agreements, remuneration, and social security for these fishers.
* **Data Protection (Article 15 and Appendix 6):** Ensures that personal data exchanged under the agreement is protected and used only for specific purposes.
* **Joint Committee (Article 16):** Defines the role of the Joint Committee in managing the Protocol, including the ability to amend certain aspects.
* **Suspension and Termination (Articles 18 & 19):** Outlines the conditions under which the Protocol can be suspended or terminated.

**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Fishing Opportunities and Financial Contribution (Articles 7 & 8):** These are the core of the agreement, defining what the EU gets in terms of fishing access and what it pays.
* **Sectoral Support (Article 9):** This is important for Côte d’Ivoire as it outlines how the EU funds will help develop its fisheries sector.
* **Catch Reporting and Monitoring (Chapter III & V of Annex):** EU vessel operators need to be very aware of these rules to avoid penalties.
* **Employment of Fishers (Chapter VI of Annex):** EU vessel operators need to be aware of the rules regarding the employment of fishers from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, including the required number of fishers to be taken on board, working conditions, work agreements, remuneration, and social security.
* **Data Protection (Article 15 and Appendix 6):** All parties handling data need to be aware of their obligations to protect personal information.

Announcement from Norway concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons – Announcement of invitation to apply for petroleum production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf – Awards in Predefined Areas 2025

This announcement from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy concerns an invitation to apply for petroleum production licenses on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, specifically within predefined areas for 2025. It is made in accordance with Directive 94/22/EC, which sets out the conditions for granting and using authorizations for hydrocarbon prospection, exploration, and production. The announcement outlines eligibility criteria, application procedures, and the criteria that will be used to award licenses.

The announcement is structured to provide a clear framework for companies interested in applying for petroleum production licenses. It begins by referencing Directive 94/22/EC and stating the basic requirements for applicants, such as being a joint stock company registered in Norway or another EEA state, or a natural person domiciled in an EEA state. It details how companies will be treated, emphasizing equal terms for individual and group applicants, and the Ministry’s right to compose licensee groups. The announcement also specifies that licensees must enter into an Agreement for Petroleum Activities, including Joint Operating and Accounting Agreements. The document then lists the criteria for awarding licenses, focusing on geological understanding, production plans, technical competence, experience, financial capacity, and past performance. Finally, it provides information on available blocks, application submission procedures, and deadlines.

The most important provisions for potential applicants are the criteria for the award of a production license. These criteria (a-k) cover a wide range of factors, from the applicant’s geological understanding and technical competence to their financial capacity and experience on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Special attention is given to operational experience, particularly drilling wells as an operator, especially in specific conditions such as the Barents Sea, deep waters, or high-pressure/high-temperature environments. These criteria will heavily influence who is awarded licenses. The deadline for applications, 2 September 2025, is also critical.

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods – Dangerous substances – list of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2024

This document is a notification of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) regarding the use of dangerous substances, specifically under Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, also known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). It lists decisions made during the period of July 1 to December 31, 2024. The document is intended to inform the EEA Joint Committee about these authorisation decisions.

The document consists of a brief introductory note referencing the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 and an annex. The annex is a table that lists the authorisation decisions. For each decision, the table provides the name of the substance, the relevant Commission Decision number under Article 64(8) of REACH, the country that made the decision (Norway, Iceland, or Liechtenstein), and the date of the decision. The main substance listed is Chromium trioxide, but also Bis(2-methoxyethyl)ether, 4-tert-OPnEO, Trixylyl phosphate (TXP), Sodium dichromate, Potassium dichromate and Acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers.

The most important aspect of this document is that it provides a consolidated list of specific authorisations granted by EEA EFTA states for the use of certain dangerous substances. This information is crucial for companies operating within the EEA, as it clarifies which substances have been authorised for use under specific conditions and in which countries. It also allows for transparency and monitoring of the implementation of REACH regulation across the EEA.

SUBCOMMITTEE I ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS – DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES – LIST OF AUTHORISATION DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE EEA EFTA STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 44(5) OF REGULATION (EU) 528/2012 IN THE SECOND HALF OF 2024

This document is a notice from the Subcommittee I on the Free Movement of Goods regarding dangerous substances. It concerns the list of authorization decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) related to biocidal products, in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, during the second half of 2024.

The document consists of a brief introductory paragraph referencing the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013, followed by an annex. The annex is a table listing the authorization decisions made by the EEA EFTA States between July 1 and December 31, 2024. The table includes the name of the biocidal product, the relevant Union authorization decision number under Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the country where the decision was made, and the date of the decision.

The most important aspect of this document is the detailed list of specific biocidal products that have been authorized for use within the EEA EFTA states during the specified period. This information is crucial for companies manufacturing, distributing, or using these products, as it confirms their legal compliance within those countries. The document provides a direct reference to the specific EU authorization decisions that underpin these national authorizations, ensuring traceability and regulatory clarity.

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods – Medicinal products – List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the second half of 2024

This document from the Official Journal of the European Union provides an update on the status of marketing authorizations for medicinal products within the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) for the period of July 1 to December 31, 2024. It reflects decisions made by the Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods regarding medicinal products.

The document is structured into five annexes, each detailing a different aspect of marketing authorization status:

* **Annex I:** Lists new marketing authorizations granted during the specified period.
* **Annex II:** Lists marketing authorizations that have been renewed.
* **Annex III:** Lists marketing authorizations where the scope has been extended.
* **Annex IV:** Lists marketing authorizations that have been withdrawn.
* **Annex V:** Lists marketing authorizations that have been suspended.

Each annex provides a table with the EU number of the product, the product name, the country where the authorization status applies, and the date of the authorization decision.

The most important aspect of this document is the comprehensive overview it provides of the regulatory changes affecting the availability and use of medicinal products in the EEA EFTA States. Annex I indicates which new medications have become available, Annex II shows which existing medications have had their market presence extended, Annex III details expansions in the approved uses of certain medications, while Annexes IV and V alert to products that are no longer available or have had their availability temporarily interrupted.