Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/606
This regulation lays down a detailed methodology for calculating and verifying recycling efficiency rates and material recovery from waste batteries, in order to implement Regulation (EU) 2023/1542. It sets standardized formats for documenting recycling processes, including definitions, calculation methods for recycling and recovery rates for specific materials (cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, lead), documentation formats, and verification processes to be applied by authorities.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1313
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1584 by updating the list of municipalities in Italy designated as demarcated areas for the containment of *Popillia japonica*. It specifies the infected and buffer zones by region and municipality, expanding the demarcated areas in several regions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1310
This regulation sets out the technical specifications for data requirements and deadlines for submitting annual metadata and quality reports on “ICT usage and e-commerce”. It ensures that data collected on these subjects are consistent and comparable across the European Union by mandating Member States to follow technical specifications and setting deadlines for report submissions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1291
This regulation registers the designation of origin ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’ in the Union register of geographical indications. It confirms that wines produced in the specified geographical area in Slovakia and meeting defined production standards can be marketed under that name within the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1282
This regulation 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 (preservatives for products during storage), subject to specific conditions outlined in the annex, including requirements for product assessment, labeling, and safety measures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1289
This regulation sets temporary measures concerning the import of potatoes from Egypt, excluding those intended for planting, to prevent the introduction of the bacterium *Ralstonia solanacearum* into the EU. It specifies requirements for production, packaging, inspection, and actions to be taken if the pest is detected.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1316
This regulation introduces temporary measures to prevent the introduction, establishment, and spread of *Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens* pv. *flaccumfaciens* within the Union territory. It mandates annual, risk-based surveys and amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 to include specific import requirements for certain plants and seeds.
Council Regulation (Euratom) 2025/1304
This regulation establishes the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for 2026-2027, with a budget of EUR 598,346,804. It aims to improve nuclear safety, security, and radiation protection and to foster the development of fusion energy, repealing Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1317
This regulation declares a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for vessels flying the flag of Ireland as the allocated quota for this stock in the specified areas for the year 2025 has been exhausted. Irish fishing vessels must cease fishing for common sole in these areas after 3 June 2025.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1305
This regulation amends Annexes II, III, and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, adjusting maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in or on food and feed. The regulation sets new or modified MRLs for specific pesticides in certain food products.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant v Council)
The CJEU upheld the Council’s decision to maintain sanctions on Belarusian entities, finding that financial support to the Lukashenko regime, even in the form of dividend payments to the Belarusian State, is a valid basis for restrictive measures.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-605/23)
The CJEU ruled that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights precludes national legislation that unduly restricts the scope of judicial review in the context of suspending the provisional enforcement of coercive administrative measures for VAT collection. National courts must assess the potential illegality of the measure.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Joined Cases)
The CJEU clarified that an act is not “purely confirmatory” if the Commision’s decision was preceded by a new examination of the situation. This clarifies the circumstances under which a party can challenge a decision of the Commission in state aid cases.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-493/22)
The CJEU ruled that tax authorities cannot automatically deem services provided by a parent company to its subsidiaries as a single, unique supply. Tax authorities must consider whether comparable services are available on the open market to determine the appropriate VAT taxable amount.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-610/23)
The CJEU ruled that Member States cannot implement rules that effectively prevent asylum seekers from appealing negative decisions, such as dismissing appeals based solely on non-appearance, without a full examination.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Cases C-646/23 and C-661/23)
The CJEU clarified that Article 19(1) TEU precludes national legislation that provides for the compulsory early retirement of a military judge declared unfit for professional military service under specific, unjustified circumstances. National courts must disapply national legislation that breaches this provision.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Unduly Paid Parliamentary Assistance Allowance)
The CJEU clarified the scope of the right to be heard and the right to access documents in the context of recovery procedures for parliamentary assistance allowances, emphasizing that MEPs must articulate the relevance of the documents they seek and that the Parliament is not required to retain data indefinitely.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA)
The CJEU clarified the extent to which a Member State’s court must consider previous convictions from other Member States and how to classify offenses for the purpose of applying national law. Members states are obligated to take into account previous convictions from other Member States to the extent that they would take into account previous national convictions
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive)
The CJEU clarified that, under Directive 93/13, a bankruptcy court is not automatically bound by a list of claims approved by the supervisory judge if there are reasons to believe that the underlying contract contains unfair terms.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-114/24 P)
The CJEU clarified that even with flat-rate financing within EU research grants, the REA has the right to audit and request evidence that the costs were actually incurred. Beneficiaries of EU funding bear the burden of proving that declared costs meet the financial conditions of the grant agreement.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Framework Agreement on fixed-term work)
The CJEU clarified that clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes non-tenured teachers who hold short-term supply teaching posts from the benefit of an electronic card. Tasks and duties of short-term supply teachers are often the same as those of their tenured colleagues, and that the mere fact that their contracts are shorter does not automatically justify different treatment.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (State Aid)
The CJEU ruled that if a national authority wrongly denies aid within the stipulated timeframe, and a court later deems this refusal unlawful after the deadline, the aid should be considered “granted” on the date of the initial wrongful refusal. This judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial remedy.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Public Contract for Language Training Services)
The CJEU supports the Commission’s decision to reject a tender because it included hypertext links to documents, which the Commission argued was not compliant with tender specifications. The Court emphasizes that tenderers should have uploaded all documents to the eSubmission application.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (The principle of *ne bis in idem*)
The CJEU ruled that EU law *precludes* national legislation that allows for both a financial penalty and the sealing of business premises for the same VAT offense, because such a combination of penalties can violate the *ne bis in idem* principle.
Invitation to apply for petroleum production licenses on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy announced an invitation to apply for petroleum production licenses on the Norwegian Continental Shelf within the Awards in Predefined Areas 2025 (APA 2025). The most important provisions for potential applicants are the criteria for the award of a production license.
Authorisation decisions made by the EEA EFTA States regarding dangerous substances
This document from the European Union provides an update on the status of authorisation decisions for dangerous substances within the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). It lists decisions made during the period of July 1 to December 31, 2024.
Marketing authorizations for medicinal products within the EEA EFTA States
The document provides an overview of which medicinal products have been newly authorized, renewed, extended, withdrawn, or suspended in the EEA EFTA States during the second half of 2024. This information is crucial for pharmaceutical companies, healthcare professionals, and patients to understand the availability and regulatory status of medicinal products in these countries.
Authorization decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States concerning biocidal products
This document from the Subcommittee I on the Free Movement of Goods lists authorization decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) concerning biocidal products, in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, during the second half of 2024.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/606 of 21 March 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the methodology for calculation and verification of rates for recycling efficiency and recovery of materials from waste batteries, and the format for the documentation
This is a description of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/606.
1. **Essence of the Act:**
This regulation supplements Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 by establishing a detailed methodology for calculating and verifying recycling efficiency rates and the recovery of materials from waste batteries. It also sets out the format for documenting these processes. The aim is to ensure a harmonized and high-quality approach to battery recycling across the EU, promoting the recovery of valuable materials while ensuring traceability and fair application of recycling rules. This regulation is crucial for creating a sustainable framework for the management of waste batteries, aligning with the broader goals of the circular economy.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.
* **Article 1** states that the methodology for calculation and verification of recycling efficiency and recovery rates, as well as the documentation format, are laid down 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** provides detailed guidelines and templates for:
* **Definitions:** Clear definitions for terms like ‘lithium-based battery,’ ‘input fraction,’ ‘intermediate fraction,’ ‘output fraction,’ ‘black mass,’ ‘impurities,’ and ‘first recycler’ to ensure consistent interpretation.
* **Calculation Methods:** Specific methods for calculating recycling efficiency rates and recovery rates for materials like cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and lead.
* **Documentation Format:** Standardized formats for documenting the treatment of substances, recycling efficiency, and material recovery for different types of batteries (lead-acid, lithium-based, nickel-cadmium, and other batteries). These formats include detailed tables for reporting input and output fractions, recycling rates, and information on the destination of recovered materials.
* **Verification Process:** A structured approach for verifying the recycling efficiency and recovery rates, including aspects such as documentation, data confidentiality, and verification techniques to be applied by competent authorities.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Harmonized Calculation:** The regulation provides a harmonized methodology for calculating recycling efficiency and material recovery rates, ensuring consistent application across all Member States.
* **Detailed Documentation:** Recyclers must adhere to specific documentation formats for reporting recycling activities, including detailed information on input and output fractions, which will facilitate traceability and verification.
* **Verification by Authorities:** Competent authorities are required to verify the data provided by recyclers, ensuring accuracy and compliance with the regulation. This includes the use of standardized verification techniques and the potential for audits.
* **Specific Material Focus:** The regulation focuses on the recovery of key materials such as cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and lead, setting specific requirements for the quality and use of these recovered materials.
* **Waste Treatment Transparency:** The regulation emphasizes the explicit documentation of the treatment of hazardous substances like mercury and cadmium to ensure their safe handling and disposal.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1313 of 3 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1584 as regards the list of demarcated areas for containment of Popillia japonica Newman in Italy
This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1313 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1584 regarding demarcated areas for the containment of Popillia japonica Newman in Italy. The regulation updates the list of municipalities in Italy that are designated as demarcated areas for the containment of this pest, expanding both the infected and buffer zones in several regions. This action is based on surveys conducted in 2024, which revealed that eradication of the pest is no longer feasible in certain areas.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1584 is replaced by the text in the Annex to the new regulation. Article 2 indicates that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides an updated list of demarcated areas for containment in Italy, specifying the infected and buffer zones by region and municipality. Compared to the previous version, this regulation expands the demarcated areas in Lombardy, Piedmont, and Valle d’Aosta, and includes municipalities from Emilia-Romagna and Liguria in the buffer zone.
The main provision of this act is the updated list of demarcated areas for containment of Popillia japonica in Annex II. This list specifies which municipalities are included in the infected and buffer zones, which is crucial for implementing containment measures and for compliance by businesses and individuals operating in those areas.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1310 of 3 July 2025 laying down the technical specifications of data requirements and the deadlines for submission of annual metadata and quality reports for the topic ICT usage and e-commerce for the reference year 2026, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/2152 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1310, which concerns the technical specifications for data requirements and deadlines for submitting annual metadata and quality reports on the topic of “ICT usage and e-commerce.” This regulation ensures that data collected on these subjects are consistent and comparable across the European Union. The data is crucial for monitoring the EU’s digital targets for 2030 and for informing various EU policies related to digital transformation and e-commerce.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 mandates that Member States must transmit data for the topic ‘ICT usage and e-commerce’ that complies with the technical specifications outlined in the Annex. Article 2 sets the deadlines for submitting the annual metadata report (May 31, 2026) and the annual quality report (November 5, 2026) to the Commission (Eurostat). Article 3 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides detailed technical specifications for the data requirements, including mandatory and optional variables, the scope of enterprises covered, and the breakdowns required for data transmission.
The most important provisions for users are within the Annex, which specifies exactly what data must be collected and reported. This includes details on the main economic activities of enterprises, the number of employees with internet access, the use of various ICT technologies (like cloud computing and AI), e-commerce activities, and ICT security measures. The Annex also specifies the statistical population (enterprises with 10 or more employees) and the required breakdowns for data reporting, ensuring that the data is harmonized and comparable across Member States.
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’ (Tokaj Wine from the Slovak area) in the Union register of geographical indications. The regulation addresses an objection from Hungary, which argued that the Slovak name was too similar to the Hungarian ‘Tokaj/Tokaji’ and could mislead consumers. The Commission, however, found that the Slovak name, with its reference to the “Slovak area,” sufficiently distinguishes it from the Hungarian product and that there is no significant risk of consumer 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 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The regulation references several previous regulations and decisions, including Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, Regulation (EU) 2019/1753, and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754, which provide the legal framework for the protection of geographical indications and the EU’s participation in international agreements related to appellations of origin.
The most important provision is Article 1, which officially grants protected designation of origin status to ‘TOKAJSKÉ VÍNO zo slovenskej oblasti’. This means that only wines produced in the specified geographical area in Slovakia and meeting the defined production standards can be marketed under that name within the EU. The decision also acknowledges the historical context of Tokaj wine production in both Hungary and Slovakia and aims to avoid consumer confusion by recognizing the distinct geographical indication.
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 regulation is based on Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. The approval is subject to specific conditions outlined in the regulation’s annex, which includes requirements for product assessment, labeling of treated articles, and safety measures for products used by non-professionals.
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 as an active substance for product-type 6 biocidal products, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides the common and IUPAC names, identification numbers, minimum degree of purity, approval and expiry dates, product type, and specific conditions for the use of the substance. There are no direct changes to previous versions, as this is an initial approval of the substance under Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
The most important provisions for practical use are in the Annex. These include the specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing the substance, such as focusing on exposures, risks, and efficacy during product assessment, especially for industrial and professional users. Additionally, the regulation mandates specific labeling requirements for treated articles to inform consumers about the presence of the substance. For paints containing the substance at concentrations that trigger classification as a skin sensitizer, the regulation requires that they be sold with protective gloves and that the label indicates the need to wear these gloves 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. The regulation follows an expiry review, which is an investigation to determine whether existing anti-dumping measures should be maintained, repealed, or amended. The review was conducted pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, which is the basic regulation governing protection against dumped imports from countries outside the EU.
The regulation consists of 2 articles and recitals.
**Article 1** establishes a definitive anti-dumping duty on specific tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, currently falling under CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (TARIC codes 7307 93 11 91, 7307 93 11 93, 7307 93 11 94, 7307 93 11 95, 7307 93 11 99, 7307 93 19 91, 7307 93 19 93, 7307 93 19 94, 7307 93 19 95, 7307 93 19 99, 7307 99 80 92, 7307 99 80 93, 7307 99 80 94, 7307 99 80 95 and 7307 99 80 98) and originating in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and the Russian Federation. It specifies the duty rates for individual companies in Korea and Malaysia, as well as a duty rate for all companies in Russia. It also outlines the conditions for applying individual duty rates, including the requirement of a valid commercial invoice.
**Article 2** stipulates that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
**The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:**
* **Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties:** The regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of specific tube and pipe fittings originating from Korea, Malaysia, and Russia.
* **Duty Rates:** The duty rates vary depending on the country of origin and the specific company. For Korea, the duty is 32.4% for TK Corporation and 44.0% for all other companies. For Malaysia, the duties are 59.2% for Anggerik Laksana Sdn Bhd, 49.9% for Pantech Steel Industries Sdn Bhd, and 75.0% for all other companies. For Russia, the duty is 23.8% for all companies.
* **Invoice Requirement:** The application of individual duty rates for specific companies in Korea and Malaysia is conditional upon the presentation of a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
* **New Exporting Producers:** The regulation allows for the addition of new exporting producers from Korea, Malaysia, and Russia, subject to certain conditions.
Compared to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/566, this regulation maintains the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia. The duty rates for specific companies and “all other companies” remain the same as in the previous regulation.
****
The regulation acknowledges the current sanctions against Russia due to the military aggression against Ukraine but asserts that these sanctions are temporary and do not affect the conclusion that dumping is likely to recur if the anti-dumping measures are allowed to lapse.
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 the actions to be taken if the specified pest is detected in imported potatoes. Finally, it amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and repeals Implementing Decision 2011/787/EU.
**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 used in the regulation, 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, including compliance with Annex I, Article 6(1), and Article 7.
* **Article 4** specifies the information that must be included in the phytosanitary certificate for the specified plants, such as the statement of compliance with this regulation, lot number, production site code, and details of the packing station and exporter.
* **Article 5** details the inspections, sampling, and testing procedures to be carried out by Member States on imported potatoes.
* **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.
* **Article 7** outlines the measures to be taken if the specified pest is confirmed in imported potatoes, including delisting of the production site and prohibition of exports.
* **Article 8** mandates specific labeling requirements for re-packaged potatoes within the EU, including origin and a “not for planting” indication.
* **Article 9** sets out waste management requirements to prevent the spread of the specified pest.
* **Article 10** amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
* **Article 11** repeals Implementing Decision 2011/787/EU.
* **Article 12** specifies the entry into force and application dates of the regulation.
* **Annex I** details the specific requirements to be fulfilled for the specified plants in Egypt and the requirements in case of suspicion of the presence or confirmed presence of the specified pest in production sites and water sources in Egypt
* **Annex II** outlines specific requirements to be fulfilled for the surveys of the production sites
* **Annex III** contains the amendment of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Requirements for Introduction (Article 3 & Annex I):** Potatoes from Egypt must meet specific production, packaging, and inspection requirements to be allowed into the EU.
* **Phytosanitary Certificate (Article 4):** The certificate must include specific declarations and information to ensure traceability and compliance.
* **Inspections and Testing (Article 5):** Member States must conduct physical checks, sampling, and testing of imported potatoes according to the specified procedures.
* **Listing of Approved Entities (Article 6):** Only potatoes from approved production sites, exporters, and packing stations listed by the Egyptian NPPO can be imported.
* **Measures upon Pest Detection (Article 7):** If *Ralstonia solanacearum* is detected, strict measures, including delisting and export prohibition, will be enforced.
* **Labelling and Waste Management (Articles 8 & 9):** Clear labeling and proper waste disposal are required within the EU to prevent the pest’s spread.
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* within the Union territory. 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 one 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 that competent authorities 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 each year.
* **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. Article 3, concerning surveys, applies until April 30, 2029, while Article 4, concerning amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, applies from April 23, 2026.
The Annex amends Annexes VII and XI of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. It introduces specific requirements for the import of plants for planting of certain species, including the need for an official statement that the plants originate from pest-free countries or areas, or from production sites complying with specific conditions, including testing. It also adds 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.* to the list of seeds in Part A of Annex XI, requiring a phytosanitary certificate for their introduction into the Union from third countries other than Switzerland.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the surveys to be conducted by Member States (Article 3) and the new requirements for the introduction into the Union of specified plants and seeds (Article 4 and the Annex). These provisions directly affect the obligations of national authorities and the conditions for importing certain plants and seeds into the EU.
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 funding will be allocated to nuclear research and training activities. The program aims to improve nuclear safety, security, and radiation protection, as well as to foster the development of fusion energy, complementing the broader Horizon Europe framework. It also repeals the previous Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Chapter I: General Provisions:**
* Defines the subject matter, which is the establishment of the 2026-2027 Euratom Programme and its rules.
* Specifies the program’s objectives, focusing on nuclear safety, security, waste management, expertise development, fusion energy, and support for EU policy.
* Sets the budget at EUR 598,346,804 for the period, with allocations for fusion research, fission research, and direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (JRC).
* Addresses the involvement of third countries in the program.
* Outlines the forms of funding, including grants, prizes, procurement, and financial instruments.
* Discusses the potential for European Partnerships to enhance the program’s impact.
* Emphasizes the importance of open science practices.
* Defines eligible actions and the rules for participation and dissemination of research results, aligning with Regulation (EU) 2021/695 but with some specific derogations related to licensing and access rights for Community institutions.
* Promotes cumulative, alternative, and combined funding with other EU programs like Horizon Europe.
* **Chapter II: Programming, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Control:**
* Details the use of work programs for implementing indirect actions, including content requirements.
* Establishes a framework for monitoring and reporting on the program’s progress, using specific indicators.
* Addresses information dissemination, communication, and exploitation of research results.
* Sets out the requirements for program evaluations.
* Defines audit procedures to protect the EU’s financial interests.
* Establishes a committee to assist the Commission in implementing the regulation, with separate configurations for fission and fusion matters.
* **Chapter III: Transitional and Final Provisions:**
* Repeals Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765.
* Includes transitional provisions to ensure the continuity of actions initiated under the previous regulation.
* Sets the entry into force date.
* **Annex I:** Details the activities eligible for funding under the program, including specific areas of research and training.
* **Annex II:** Sets out the impact pathways and related key impact pathway indicators for monitoring the program’s performance.
**Key Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**
* The regulation repeals and replaces Regulation (Euratom) 2021/765, continuing the Euratom Research and Training Programme for an additional two years (2026-2027).
* It maintains the key research activities, objectives, and mode of implementation of the previous program.
* It incorporates recommendations from the interim evaluation of the 2021-2025 Euratom Programme.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Article 3 (Programme objectives):** This article is crucial as it defines the scope and priorities of the program.
* **Article 4 (Budget):** This article specifies the financial resources available and their allocation, which is essential for planning and funding decisions.
* **Article 5 (Third countries associated to the 2026-2027 Euratom Programme):** This article is important for understanding the conditions under which non-EU countries can participate in the program.
* **Article 9 (Eligible actions and rules for participation and dissemination of research results):** This article outlines what types of projects are eligible for funding and the rules governing participation and dissemination of research results.
* **Annex I (Activities):** This annex provides a detailed list of research and training areas that are eligible for funding, offering guidance to potential applicants.
* **Annex II (Impact pathways):** This annex is important for understanding how the program’s progress will be monitored and evaluated.
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 declares a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7f and 7g for vessels flying the flag of Ireland. This action is prompted by the exhaustion of the allocated quota for this stock in the specified areas for the year 2025. The regulation aims to ensure compliance with the established quotas and to prevent overfishing of the common sole stock.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states 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, including fishing for the stock, searching for fish, and setting or hauling fishing gear. However, it allows for transshipping, retaining on board, processing, transferring, caging, fattening, and landing of fish caught before the closing date. It also specifies that unintended catches must be retained, recorded, landed, and counted against quotas. Article 3 indicates 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 as 3 June 2025.
The most important provision of this regulation is the prohibition of fishing activities for common sole in areas 7f and 7g by Irish vessels after 3 June 2025. This measure directly impacts Irish fishing vessels operating in these areas, requiring them to cease fishing for common sole to comply with the regulation and 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 amends Annexes II, III, and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which concerns maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in or on food and feed. The regulation adjusts MRLs for several substances, including amidosulfuron, azoxystrobin, hexythiazox, isoxaben, picloram, propamocarb, sodium silver thiosulfate, and tefluthrin, in various products. These amendments are based on evaluations and reasoned opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The regulation modifies MRLs for specific pesticide-food combinations listed in Annex II and Annex III. For example, it sets new MRLs for azoxystrobin in melons and watermelons, hexythiazox in blackberries and raspberries, and isoxaben in dry beans and dry peas. It also updates the residue definition for picloram in plant products and honey in Annex III. Additionally, the regulation includes sodium silver thiosulfate in Annex IV, indicating that no specific MRLs are required due to its approved uses being limited to indoor, non-edible crops.
The key provisions of this regulation include the setting of new or modified MRLs for specific pesticides in certain food products, reflecting updated scientific assessments and import tolerance requests. For picloram, the change in residue definition for enforcement in plant products and honey from “picloram” to “picloram, free and conjugated, expressed as picloram” is notable. The inclusion of sodium silver thiosulfate in Annex IV means that the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg no longer applies to this substance.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant v Council of the European Union.Appeal – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus as regards democracy, the rule of law and human rights – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance on those lists of Belarusian undertakings almost wholly owned by the State – Listing criterion related to ‘support to the Lukashenko regime’ – Obligation imposed on certain Belarusian undertakings owned or controlled by the State to pay part of their profits to the State pursuant to a mandatory State measure.Case C-326/24 P.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding an appeal by Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant against the Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures (freezing of funds and economic resources) imposed on Belarusian entities due to the situation in Belarus regarding democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. The central issue is whether the inclusion and maintenance of these Belarusian undertakings on the lists of sanctioned entities, based on the criterion of “support to the Lukashenko regime,” was justified.
The judgment addresses the appeal against the General Court’s decision to dismiss the appellants’ action for annulment of the Council’s decisions and regulations that initially imposed and subsequently maintained the restrictive measures. The legal context involves a series of Council decisions and regulations, including Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, which outline the criteria for imposing sanctions, particularly targeting those who “support the Lukashenko regime.” The Council’s initial and maintaining acts at issue listed Grodno Azot and its Khimvolokno Plant, citing their status as state-owned enterprises and their contribution to the Lukashenko regime’s revenue.
The key provisions and arguments revolve around the interpretation of “support to the Lukashenko regime.” The appellants argued that the Council’s decision was based on an error in assessing the facts, particularly regarding the nature of dividends paid to the Belarusian State, which they claimed should be treated as taxes and thus not considered as support. They also contested the assessment of whether their economic support was “substantial.” The Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s decision, finding that the Council did not err in its assessment and that the payments made by the appellants to the Belarusian State could be considered as financial support to the regime, regardless of whether they were classified as taxes or dividends. The Court emphasized that focusing on the financial support provided to the regime aligns with the objective of increasing pressure on the regime to improve its human rights and democratic practices.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2025.„Ati-19“ EOOD v Nachalnik na otdel „Operativni deynosti“ – Sofia v Glavna direktsia „Fiskalen kontrol“ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 273 – Article 47, first paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective remedy – Coercive administrative measure of sealing business premises – Application for suspension – Limited judicial review.Case C-605/23.
This is the Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2025 in Case C-605/23, concerning a request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Administrative Court, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria). The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 273 of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC). It specifically addresses the scope of judicial review in the context of a coercive administrative measure – sealing business premises – and the right to an effective remedy.
The judgment examines whether national rules, which limit judicial review in cases involving the provisional enforcement of measures safeguarding VAT collection (under Article 273 of the VAT Directive), are compatible with Article 47 of the Charter. The limitation in question restricts the scope of review to the existence of damage suffered, potentially hindering a full assessment of the measure’s legality. The case originated from a dispute in Bulgaria between ‘Ati-19’ EOOD and the tax authority regarding the sealing of the company’s business premises due to a VAT-related infringement.
The Court ruled that Article 47 of the Charter precludes national legislation that unduly restricts the scope of judicial review in the context of suspending the provisional enforcement of coercive administrative measures. The key point is that the national court must have the possibility to assess whether the suspension application is justified by arguments demonstrating the potential illegality of the measure. This judgment reinforces the importance of effective judicial remedies and the need for a comprehensive assessment of the legality of administrative measures, especially when they impact fundamental rights.
Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 3 juillet 2025.#Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Aides d’État – Exonération d’impôts en faveur des exploitants des ports français – Plaintes successives – Notion de “partie intéressée” – Notion d’“acte purement confirmatif”.#Affaire C-628/24 P.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) regarding a dispute over state aid granted to French port operators. The case revolves around the Communauté d’Agglomération du Boulonnais (CAB), a French local authority, and its challenge to the European Commission’s decision to reject its complaint about tax exemptions benefiting port operators in France.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** The CAB filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that tax exemptions granted to port operators in France constituted illegal state aid. The Commission rejected the complaint, stating that the CAB was not an “interested party” as defined in EU regulations.
2. **The Legal Framework:** The judgment refers to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, which defines “interested party” in the context of state aid investigations. It also mentions Article 24(2) of the same regulation, which allows interested parties to file complaints with the Commission regarding alleged illegal aid.
3. **The Tribunal’s Decision:** The CAB then appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Court (Tribunal of the European Union), which dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission that the decision rejecting the CAB’s complaint was merely a confirmation of a previous decision and did not contain any new elements.
4. **The Appeal to the Court of Justice:** The CAB appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Court of Justice, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Commission’s decision was purely confirmatory.
5. **The Court of Justice’s Reasoning:** The Court of Justice analyzed whether the Commission’s decision contained new elements or involved a re-examination of the CAB’s situation. It noted that the Commission’s decision did provide some clarification and referenced a relevant court case (Braesch), which was initially invoked by CAB, but then was overruled by the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice concluded that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Commission’s decision was purely confirmatory because the Commission’s decision was preceded by a new examination of the situation of the CAB.
6. **The Court of Justice’s Decision:** The Court of Justice set aside the Tribunal’s decision and referred the case back to the Tribunal for further examination.
The most important provision of the judgment is the clarification of the concept of “purely confirmatory act” in the context of state aid procedures. The Court of Justice reiterated that a decision can only be considered purely confirmatory if it contains no new legal or factual elements and is not preceded by a re-examination of the situation. This clarification is important for understanding the circumstances under which a party can challenge a decision of the Commission in state aid cases.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Högkullen AB v Skatteverket.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 72 – Open market value – Article 80 – Revaluation of the taxable amount – Parent company providing services to its subsidiaries in the context of actively managing them – Determination of the open market value.Case C-808/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC), specifically concerning the determination of the open market value of services provided by a parent company to its subsidiaries. The case revolves around a Swedish company, Högkullen AB, and a dispute with the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) over the VAT charged on services Högkullen provided to its subsidiaries. The core issue is whether these intra-group services should be considered as unique, preventing the use of a market comparison to determine their open market value for VAT purposes, and how to calculate the costs associated with these services.
The judgment addresses two main questions raised by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. The first question concerns whether the services provided by a parent company to its subsidiaries can always be considered unique, thus preventing the determination of their open market value through comparison as per Article 72 of the VAT Directive. The second question asks whether all expenditures of a parent company, including capital raising and shareholder costs, can be considered as costs incurred for providing services to its subsidiaries, especially when the parent company’s sole activity is managing these subsidiaries and it has deducted all input VAT.
The CJEU ruled that Articles 72 and 80 of the VAT Directive preclude tax authorities from always considering the services provided by a parent company to its subsidiaries as a single supply, which would prevent determining the open market value using the comparison method outlined in Article 72. The Court emphasized that services like business management, financial services, and IT administration should not automatically be considered so closely linked as to form a single, indivisible supply. The judgment clarifies that each service should be assessed individually to determine its open market value. Given this answer to the first question, the Court found it unnecessary to answer the second question.
The most important provision of this act is that tax authorities cannot automatically deem services provided by a parent company to its subsidiaries as a single, unique supply. This means that tax authorities must consider whether comparable services are available on the open market to determine the appropriate VAT taxable amount. This ruling prevents a blanket approach to VAT assessment in intra-group service provisions and requires a more nuanced, case-by-case analysis.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2025.FO v Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – International protection – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 46 – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy – Requirement of full and ex nunc examination of the appeal – Obligation to appear in person before the authority examining the appeal – Presumption that an appeal has been improperly brought – Dismissal of the appeal as manifestly unfounded without examination of the merits – Principle of proportionality.Case C-610/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the judgment in Case C-610/23 [Al Nasiria]:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This judgment addresses the right to an effective remedy for asylum seekers in the EU. It clarifies that Member States cannot implement rules that effectively prevent asylum seekers from appealing negative decisions. Specifically, it examines the legality of a Greek law that presumes an appeal is unfounded if the asylum seeker doesn’t appear in person, leading to the appeal’s dismissal without a full examination. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules that such a law is incompatible with EU law.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The judgment interprets Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU (the Asylum Procedures Directive) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to an effective remedy).
* **Context:** The case arose from a Greek court’s request for clarification on whether Greek law was compatible with EU law. The Greek law required asylum seekers to appear in person before an appeals committee, and failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of their appeal as manifestly unfounded.
* **Key EU Legislation Discussed:**
* Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive): Sets common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection.
* Directive 2011/95/EU (Qualification Directive): Defines who qualifies for international protection.
* Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to an effective remedy.
* **Core Reasoning:** The CJEU emphasizes that Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU requires a “full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law” in asylum appeals. The Greek law, by dismissing appeals based solely on non-appearance, prevents this full examination.
* **Principle of Proportionality:** The Court applies the principle of proportionality, stating that while Member States can pursue legitimate objectives (like efficient processing of asylum claims), the measures they take must be necessary and not excessively burdensome. Requiring personal appearance, especially when the asylum seeker is far from the appeals location, and then automatically dismissing the appeal is deemed disproportionate.
* **”Court or Tribunal”:** The judgment confirms that the Greek Independent Appeals Committees can be considered “courts or tribunals” for the purpose of Article 46 of the Directive, meaning they must guarantee an effective remedy.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Right to an Effective Remedy:** This judgment reinforces the fundamental right of asylum seekers to have a fair and thorough appeal process.
* **Full and Ex Nunc Examination:** Appeals must involve a complete assessment of the facts and legal issues, updated to the present time.
* **Limits on Procedural Requirements:** Member States cannot impose procedural rules that make it excessively difficult for asylum seekers to exercise their right to appeal.
* **Proportionality:** Any requirements must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Automatic dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance, without considering the reasons for it, is likely disproportionate.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Criminal proceedings against P.B. and R.S.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Independence of the judiciary – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Effective judicial protection in areas covered by EU law – Principle of irremovability of judges – Military judge found unfit for professional military service – National legislation requiring the early retirement of that judge.Joined Cases C-646/23 and C-661/23.
This is the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) in the joined cases C-646/23 (Lita) and C-661/23 (Jeszek), which addresses requests for preliminary rulings from Poland concerning the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The cases revolve around a Polish military judge who was deemed unfit for military service but fit to continue as a judge. National legislation was enacted requiring the early retirement of this judge, raising questions about the compatibility of this action with EU law principles regarding judicial independence and effective legal protection. The Court’s judgment clarifies the scope and implications of Article 19(1) TEU concerning judicial independence and its interplay with national law.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction**: It outlines the context of the requests for preliminary rulings, the relevant EU law provisions (Article 2, Article 4(2) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Directive 2016/343, Article 47 of the Charter, Article 267 TFEU and the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law and of the separation of powers), and the nature of the criminal proceedings in the main cases.
2. **Polish Law**: It details the relevant provisions of the Polish Constitution, the Law on the ordinary courts, the Law on military courts, the Law on the defence of the homeland, and the amending law that led to the early retirement of the judge.
3. **Disputes in the Main Proceedings**: It describes the factual background of the cases, including the circumstances surrounding Judge P.R.’s situation, the legislative changes affecting his position, and the concerns raised by the referring court regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
4. **Questions Referred**: It presents the specific questions referred to the Court of Justice by the Wojskowy Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Regional Military Court, Warsaw, Poland), concerning the interpretation of EU law and its application to the national legislation in question.
5. **Proceedings Before the Court**: It outlines the procedural steps taken by the Court, including the joinder of the cases and the rejection of the request for an expedited procedure.
6. **Jurisdiction of the Court**: It affirms the Court’s jurisdiction to answer the questions referred, based on the applicability of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
7. **Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling**: It provides a detailed analysis of the questions referred, addressing the key issues of judicial independence, the principle of irremovability, and the primacy of EU law.
8. **Costs**: It states that the decision on costs is a matter for the referring court.
The most important provisions of the judgment are:
* **Interpretation of Article 19(1) TEU**: The Court clarifies that Article 19(1) TEU precludes national legislation that provides for the compulsory early retirement of a military judge declared unfit for professional military service under specific circumstances. These circumstances include a lack of justification for the legislation, unequal treatment compared to military prosecutors, the legislation affecting only one judge, the measure being punitive, and the lack of a judicial remedy to challenge the early retirement.
* **Primacy of EU Law**: The Court emphasizes that national courts and authorities must disapply national legislation that breaches Article 19(1) TEU. This means that a judge retired under such legislation must be reinstated, and the judicial bodies responsible for the composition of panels must ensure this reinstatement.
* **Interim Measures**: The Court affirms that a national court referring questions for a preliminary ruling is entitled to temporarily suspend the application of national legislation providing for the compulsory early retirement of a judge, even if national law does not allow for such suspension. This suspension ensures that the judge can continue hearing cases.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.European Parliament v TC.Appeal – Law governing the institutions – European Parliament – Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery of sums unduly paid – Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to be heard – Right of access to the file – Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies – Article 9 – Transmissions of personal data to recipients established in the European Union other than Union institutions and bodies – Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.Case C-529/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal by the European Parliament against a previous judgment by the General Court. The case revolves around the recovery of unduly paid parliamentary assistance allowance from a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), TC. The core issue is whether the Parliament properly respected TC’s right to be heard and his right to access documents relevant to his defense during the recovery procedure. The CJEU partially upholds the Parliament’s appeal, setting aside parts of the General Court’s judgment and referring the case back to the General Court for further review.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial decision by the Parliament to recover funds from TC, the legal context (including the Electoral Act, the Statute for Members, Implementing Measures, and Regulations on data protection and staff regulations), and the proceedings before the General Court.
* It then details the forms of order sought by both parties in the appeal.
* The core of the judgment involves the CJEU’s analysis of the Parliament’s grounds for appeal. The CJEU examines five grounds of appeal, focusing on the right to be heard, access to documents, and data protection regulations.
* The CJEU ultimately upholds the appeal in part, setting aside specific points of the General Court’s judgment. It then examines the pleas in the action before the General Court and refers the case back for further consideration of certain unresolved issues.
* Finally, it addresses the issue of costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment clarifies the scope of the right to be heard and the right to access documents in the context of recovery procedures for parliamentary assistance allowances. Key provisions and changes include:
* **Right to be Heard:** The CJEU clarifies that while MEPs have the right to be heard, this does not automatically grant them access to any document held by the Parliament. MEPs must specifically identify the evidence they seek and explain how it is relevant to their defense.
* **Data Retention:** The CJEU finds that the Parliament is not obligated to retain emails or data beyond its standard retention policies solely because a conflict arises between an MEP and their assistant.
* **Data Protection:** The CJEU acknowledges that data protection regulations (specifically Regulation 2018/1725) apply but do not automatically preclude the Parliament from granting access to personal data when necessary to ensure the right to be heard, provided the conditions of Article 9(1)(b) are met, balancing the interests of all parties.
* **Staff Regulations:** The CJEU confirms that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations restricts access to an assistant’s personal file, meaning the Parliament cannot be compelled to provide the file directly to the MEP, but consultation in the Parliament’s offices may be possible.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are the clarifications regarding the scope of the right to be heard and the limitations on the Parliament’s obligation to disclose documents. MEPs facing recovery procedures must:
* Clearly articulate the relevance of the documents they seek.
* Understand that the Parliament is not required to retain data indefinitely or deviate from its standard data retention policies.
* Be aware of the restrictions on accessing personal files under the Staff Regulations.
This judgment provides important guidance for both MEPs and the Parliament in navigating the complex legal landscape surrounding parliamentary assistance allowances and the rights and obligations of all parties involved.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Criminal proceedings against YE.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA – Article 3(1) and (2) – Taking account of previous convictions handed down in another Member State in the course of new criminal proceedings – Legal effects equivalent to previous national convictions – Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA – Exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States – Article 2(a) – Concept of criminal conviction – Administrative offences – Classification of offences under national law – Acts not constituting criminal offences under national law.Case C-263/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of two Framework Decisions concerning criminal matters: Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA on taking account of convictions in Member States and Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the exchange of information extracted from criminal records. The case originates from Bulgaria and involves a Bulgarian national, YE, who is being prosecuted for driving without a license. The Bulgarian court is seeking clarification on how to consider previous convictions YE has in other EU countries (Belgium and Germany) for similar and other traffic-related offenses. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which a Member State’s court must consider previous convictions from other Member States and how to classify offenses for the purpose of applying national law.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** Briefly describes the request for a preliminary ruling and the legal context.
* **Legal Context:** Outlines the relevant articles from international law (European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters), EU law (Convention on Mutual Assistance between Member States), and the two Framework Decisions (2008/675 and 2009/315), as well as relevant articles of Bulgarian criminal law.
* **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Details the factual background of the case in Bulgaria, the specific convictions YE has in Belgium and Germany, and the two questions the Bulgarian court is asking the CJEU.
* **Procedure before the Court:** Notes the procedural steps taken by the CJEU.
* **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the CJEU analyzes and answers the questions posed by the Bulgarian court.
* **The second question**: Deals with whether a Member State can disregard previous convictions from other Member States for acts that are not considered criminal offenses under its own national law.
* **The first question**: Concerns how a national court should classify offenses committed in other Member States (as criminal or administrative) and the extent to which it is bound by the classification in the other Member State.
* **Costs:** States that the national court will decide on costs.
The main provisions and changes clarified by the judgment are:
* **Obligation to Consider Previous Convictions:** Member States are obligated to take into account previous convictions from other Member States to the extent that they would take into account previous national convictions. However, this obligation is minimal and does not aim to harmonize the consequences of previous convictions across different national legislations.
* **Definition of “Conviction”:** The term “conviction” refers to a final decision by a criminal court establishing guilt for a *criminal offense*. It does not extend to acts that are merely “punishable” under national law or to decisions by administrative authorities.
* **Equivalence of Legal Effects:** Member States must ensure that previous convictions from other Member States have “equivalent” legal effects to national convictions. This means avoiding a situation where the person is treated less favorably than if the conviction had been national. However, this does not allow for a review or reclassification of the offense committed in the other Member State.
* **Classification of Offenses:** The national court must assess whether the acts that led to the previous convictions in other Member States are classified as criminal offenses under the *law of the other Member State*. If they are, the national court must then determine the equivalent category of offense under its own national law to ensure equivalent legal effects.
* **Information Exchange:** If the information available through the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) is insufficient, the national court can directly request additional information from the courts that issued the previous convictions.
The most important provisions for practical use are:
* **Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675:** This article establishes the core obligation for Member States to take into account previous convictions from other Member States.
* **Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/675 and Article 2(a) of Framework Decision 2009/315:** These articles define the term “conviction” as relating to criminal offenses, which is crucial for determining the scope of the obligation to consider previous convictions.
* **The distinction between criminal and administrative offenses:** The judgment clarifies that only criminal offenses, as defined by the law of the convicting Member State, must be considered under the Framework Decision.
* **The principle of mutual recognition:** The judgment emphasizes that previous convictions from other Member States must be recognized in the terms in which they were handed down, without review or reclassification.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.R.S. v C. S.A. and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Powers and obligations of the national court – Insolvency proceedings relating to a natural person – Bankruptcy court has no power to examine ex officio whether the terms of a contract that gave rise to a claim on the list of claims are unfair – No power for that court to order interim measures – Principle of effectiveness.Case C-582/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC) in the context of Polish insolvency proceedings. The case specifically addresses the powers and obligations of national courts in examining the fairness of contractual terms when a consumer is undergoing bankruptcy. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which a bankruptcy court is bound by a previously approved list of claims and whether it can order interim measures to protect the bankrupt consumer.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the request for a preliminary ruling from a Polish court, the legal context including relevant EU and Polish law, the facts of the main proceedings, and the questions referred to the CJEU.
* **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** This section contains the Court’s legal analysis and answers to the two questions posed by the Polish court.
* **First Question:** The CJEU rules that Directive 93/13 precludes national legislation that binds the bankruptcy court to a list of claims approved by another judicial authority (the supervisory judge) without an examination of the fairness of the underlying contractual terms. The bankruptcy court must be able to assess the fairness of these terms, even if it means not being bound by the previously approved list.
* **Second Question:** The CJEU finds that Directive 93/13 also precludes national legislation that prevents the bankruptcy court from ordering interim measures to protect the bankrupt consumer while the fairness of contractual terms is being examined. Such measures may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of consumer protection under the Directive.
* **Costs:** The decision on costs is left to the referring court.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* The bankruptcy court is not automatically bound by a list of claims approved by the supervisory judge if there are reasons to believe that the underlying contract contains unfair terms.
* The bankruptcy court has the power and the obligation to examine the fairness of contractual terms, even if the list of claims has already been approved.
* The bankruptcy court must be able to order interim measures to protect the bankrupt consumer during the examination of the fairness of contractual terms.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Global Nanotechnologies AE schediasmou anaptyxis paraskevis kai emporias ylikon nanotechnologias (Glonatech) v European Research Executive Agency.Appeal – Arbitration clause – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – The SANAD project – Staff costs – Eligible costs – Request for recovery – Debit note – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of good administration – Substitution of grounds – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Burden of proof – Proportionality.Case C-114/24 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) in Case C-114/24 P, concerning an appeal by Global Nanotechnologies AE (Glonatech) against a judgment of the General Court. The case revolves around a dispute over the funding of the SANAD project, which was part of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration activities (2007-2013). The European Research Executive Agency (REA) sought recovery of funds from Glonatech, claiming certain costs were ineligible.
The structure of the judgment involves an examination of Glonatech’s appeal against the General Court’s decision. The Court of Justice addresses five grounds of appeal raised by Glonatech, each contesting different aspects of the General Court’s judgment. These grounds include alleged breaches of the right to effective judicial protection, errors in interpreting EU law regarding flat-rate financing, misinterpretation of the grant agreement and Belgian law, distortion of evidence, and reversal of the burden of proof. The Court systematically assesses each ground, referring to relevant articles of EU regulations, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the grant agreement itself.
The most important provisions relate to the interpretation of flat-rate financing within EU research grants and the conditions under which the REA can conduct financial audits and demand the return of funds. The judgment clarifies that even with flat-rate financing, the REA has the right to audit and request evidence that the costs were actually incurred. It also confirms that the beneficiary of EU funding bears the burden of proving that declared costs meet the financial conditions of the grant agreement. The Court dismisses Glonatech’s appeal, upholding the REA’s claim for the recovery of funds.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.ZT v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Allowance granted in the form of an electronic card, in order to support in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills – No grant of that card to non-tenured teachers responsible for short-term supply teaching posts.Case C-268/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, specifically concerning the principle of non-discrimination. The case revolves around an Italian law that provides an electronic card worth EUR 500 to support the in-service training of teachers. The central question is whether it is discriminatory to deny this card to non-tenured teachers who are responsible for short-term supply teaching posts, while granting it to tenured teachers and non-tenured teachers with longer-term contracts.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Sets the context of the preliminary ruling and the relevant EU Directive and Framework Agreement.
2. **Legal Context:** Details the relevant articles of EU law (Directive 1999/70/EC and the Framework Agreement) and Italian law (various legislative decrees and laws concerning education and school staff).
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the factual background of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the questions posed by the Italian court to the CJEU.
4. **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the CJEU analyzes the questions and provides its interpretation of EU law.
5. **Admissibility:** Addresses and dismisses the Italian Government’s argument that the questions are inadmissible.
6. **Substance:** Examines whether the Italian legislation is compatible with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Framework Agreement.
7. **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs in the proceedings.
8. **Operative Part:** States the CJEU’s ruling.
The main provision of the act is that clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by a national supreme court, which reserves the benefit of an electronic card with a nominal value of EUR 500 per year, enabling the purchase of different goods and services intended to support the in-service training of teachers, to tenured teachers and non-tenured teachers who hold supply teaching posts for the duration of the academic year, to the exclusion of non-tenured teachers who hold short-term supply teaching posts, unless that exclusion is justified on objective grounds, within the meaning of that provision. The mere fact that the activity of the latter teachers is not intended to last until the end of the academic year does not constitute such an objective ground.
The most important aspect of this judgment is its emphasis on the principle of non-discrimination between fixed-term and permanent workers. The CJEU clarifies that denying the electronic card to short-term supply teachers, while granting it to tenured and longer-term fixed-term teachers, constitutes discrimination unless justified by objective reasons. The Court emphasizes that the tasks and duties of short-term supply teachers are often the same as those of their tenured colleagues, and that the mere fact that their contracts are shorter does not automatically justify different treatment. This ruling reinforces the rights of fixed-term workers and ensures that they are not unfairly disadvantaged compared to their permanent counterparts.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2025.SIA „TOODE” v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Article 107(1) TFEU – Aid scheme authorised by the European Commission – Support to the economy in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – Refusal by the competent authority to grant aid – Legal action requesting that the court before which the matter has been brought order the adoption of a beneficial administrative act ex nunc – Expiry, during the legal proceedings, of the time limit prescribed for granting the aid – Date on which the aid is deemed to have been granted – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective judicial remedy – Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Article 1 – Existing aid.Case C-653/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling regarding State aid, specifically in the context of aid schemes authorized by the European Commission to support economies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case revolves around a Latvian company, ‘TOODE’ SIA, and the Latvian tax authority’s refusal to grant aid, and the subsequent legal proceedings.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 1(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 concerning the definition of “existing aid.” The key issue is determining when State aid is considered to be “granted” and whether aid paid out after the expiration of the granting period, but based on a court decision correcting an earlier unlawful refusal, qualifies as “existing aid.”
The CJEU rules that if a national authority wrongly denies aid within the stipulated timeframe, and a court later deems this refusal unlawful after the deadline, the aid should be considered “granted” on the date of the initial wrongful refusal. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that such aid should be classified as “existing aid,” even if it is paid out after the original aid scheme’s validity has expired, as long as the right to receive the aid was established before the expiration date. This judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial remedy and ensures that companies are not penalized due to wrongful administrative decisions.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2025.Instituto Cervantes and Kingdom of Spain v European Commission.3 July 2025 *Language of the case: French(Appeal – Award of public contracts by the European Union – Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Contract for language training services – Obligation to submit tenders via the electronic application eSubmission – Use by a tenderer of a hypertext link to a website containing documents describing the tender – Refusal of the administration to take those documents into consideration – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Objective impartiality – Obligation to state reasons – Comparative tender evaluation method).Joined Cases C-534/23 P and C-539/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding an appeal concerning a public contract for language training services. The Instituto Cervantes (IC) and the Kingdom of Spain appealed a decision by the General Court that upheld the European Commission’s decision to award a contract for Spanish language training to a different consortium. The core issue revolves around the use of hypertext links in tenders and whether the Commission was justified in rejecting IC’s tender due to the inclusion of these links to documents describing their offer.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the appeals by Instituto Cervantes and the Kingdom of Spain against the General Court’s judgment.
2. **Legal Context:** Cites relevant articles from Directive 2014/24/EU and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046, focusing on public procurement principles, submission of application documents, and award criteria.
3. **Background to the Dispute:** Summarizes the events leading to the appeals, including the Commission’s call for tenders, the evaluation process, and the reasons for rejecting IC’s tender.
4. **The Procedure Before the General Court and the Judgment Under Appeal:** Details the pleas brought by IC before the General Court and the court’s reasons for dismissing the action.
5. **Forms of Order Sought and Procedure Before the Court:** Specifies the orders sought by IC and the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission’s response.
6. **The Appeals:** This section contains the court’s legal analysis and rulings on each of the grounds for appeal raised by IC and the Kingdom of Spain. The court examines whether the General Court erred in its assessment of the facts and application of the law, specifically concerning the use of hypertext links in tenders, the obligation to state reasons, the principle of equal treatment, and the requirement of objective impartiality.
7. **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* **Rejection of Hypertext Links:** The Court supports the Commission’s decision to reject IC’s tender because it included hypertext links to documents, which the Commission argued was not compliant with tender specifications and posed a risk of information modification after the submission deadline. The Court emphasizes that tenderers should have uploaded all documents to the eSubmission application.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The Court finds that the Commission adequately stated the reasons for its decision, even without specifying the exact points deducted for each component of the evaluation criteria. It clarifies that the Commission is not required to provide a detailed summary of how each detail of the tender was taken into account.
* **Principle of Equal Treatment:** The Court concludes that there was no evidence of unequal treatment in the evaluation of tenders, despite some discrepancies in the comments made by the evaluation committee.
* **Requirement of Objective Impartiality:** The Court determines that the evaluation process provided sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to bias, as the price and quality evaluations were conducted separately.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2025.„Beach and bar management“ EOOD v Nachalnik na otdel „Operativni deynosti“ – Burgas.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 273 – Article 49(3) and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle ne bis in idem – Duplication of criminal and administrative penalties in respect of the same offence – Financial penalty and sealing of a commercial premises – Provisional enforcement of sealing – Principle of proportionality.Case C-733/23.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU law related to Value Added Tax (VAT), the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the principle of *ne bis in idem* (double jeopardy). The case originates from Bulgaria and involves a company, “Beach and bar management” EOOD, which was penalized for failing to issue fiscal cash register receipts. The penalties included both financial penalties and the sealing of the company’s business premises.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses questions raised by a Bulgarian court regarding the compatibility of Bulgarian tax legislation with EU law. The court examines whether the imposition of both financial penalties and the sealing of business premises for the same VAT offense is permissible under EU law, specifically considering Article 325 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), Article 273 of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC), and Articles 49(3) and 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling.
* It describes the legal context, including relevant articles from the TFEU, the Charter, the VAT Directive, and Bulgarian national law (Law on VAT and Law on Administrative Offences and Penalties).
* It details the dispute in the main proceedings, outlining the specific facts of the case involving “Beach and bar management” EOOD.
* It presents the questions referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling by the Bulgarian court.
* It assesses the admissibility of the questions.
* It provides a detailed consideration of the questions, offering interpretations of the relevant EU law.
* Finally, it states the Court’s ruling.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The core of the judgment revolves around the principle of *ne bis in idem*, which is enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter. The Court clarifies that this principle can be violated when a company faces both financial penalties and the sealing of its premises for the same offense, especially if these penalties are pursued in separate and uncoordinated proceedings.
**Most Important Provisions:**
The most important takeaways from this judgment are:
1. **Double Penalties:** The CJEU rules that EU law *precludes* national legislation that allows for both a financial penalty and the sealing of business premises for the same VAT offense. This is because such a combination of penalties can violate the *ne bis in idem* principle.
2. **Proportionality:** The CJEU also finds that EU law *precludes* national legislation that sets a high minimum financial penalty without allowing the national court the flexibility to impose a lower penalty or a more lenient type of penalty. This is because the severity of penalties must be proportionate to the offense.
3. **Criminal Nature of Penalties:** The Court reaffirms that even administrative penalties can be considered “criminal” in nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, depending on their severity. The sealing of business premises, in particular, is considered a severe penalty.
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 the Awards in Predefined Areas 2025 (APA 2025). It is issued 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 evaluate applications for production licenses.
The announcement is structured to provide a clear framework for companies interested in applying for petroleum production licenses in Norway. 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 equally, whether applying individually or as part of a group, and clarifies the Ministry’s authority to compose licensee groups. The announcement also specifies that licensees must enter into an Agreement for Petroleum Activities, including Joint Operating and Accounting Agreements, and addresses specific agreements for stratigraphically divided licenses or those related to CO2 storage. A significant portion of the announcement is dedicated to the criteria for awarding production licenses, which include geological understanding, production plans, technical competence, experience, financial capacity, and past performance as a licensee. Specific requirements are outlined for operators in the Barents Sea, deep waters, and areas with high pressure/high temperature conditions. Finally, the announcement provides information on available blocks, application submission details, and deadlines, with awards planned for the first quarter of 2026.
The most important provisions for potential applicants are the criteria for the award of a production license. These criteria (a-k) detail the specific requirements and qualifications the Ministry will consider when evaluating applications. These include geological understanding, production plans, technical competence, experience on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, financial capacity, and past performance. The specific requirements for operators in different environments (Barents Sea, deep waters, HTHP) are also critical, as they dictate the necessary experience levels for leading production activities in these areas.
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 publication by the European Union concerning authorisation decisions made by the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) regarding 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 serves to inform the EEA Joint Committee of these authorisation decisions.
The document is structured as follows:
* **Reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision:** It starts by referencing EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008, providing a legal basis for the document.
* **Introduction:** It states the purpose of the document, which is to inform the EEA Joint Committee about authorisation decisions made under Article 64(8) of REACH.
* **Annex: List of Authorisation Decisions:** This is the main part of the document, presenting a table of authorisation decisions. The table includes the following columns:
* Substance Name
* Commission Decision under Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
* Country (EEA EFTA State)
* Date of Decision
The document does not introduce changes to previous versions but rather provides an updated list of authorisation decisions made during a specific period.
The most important provision of this document is the list of authorisation decisions itself. This list provides transparency regarding which dangerous substances have been authorised for use within the EEA EFTA States, the specific Commission Decisions related to those authorisations, and the dates on which those decisions were made. This information is crucial for businesses, regulators, and other stakeholders involved in the management of chemical substances within the European Economic Area.
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 category 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 that have 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 (Iceland, Liechtenstein, or Norway), and the date of the authorization decision. Annex II contains footnotes indicating unintentional omissions or delays from previous periods.
The most important aspect of this document is that it provides an overview of which medicinal products have been newly authorized, renewed, extended, withdrawn, or suspended in the EEA EFTA States during the second half of 2024. This information is crucial for pharmaceutical companies, healthcare professionals, and patients to understand the availability and regulatory status of medicinal products in these countries.
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) concerning 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 and 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 provision of this document is the list of specific biocidal products that have been authorized for use in the EEA EFTA States during the specified period. This information is crucial for manufacturers, distributors, and users of biocidal products to ensure compliance with EU regulations and national authorizations within the EEA.
