Review of the EU legislation for 11/07/2025

Review of Legal Acts

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1201

This regulation modifies the start date of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) licensing scheme for timber imports from Ghana. Instead of beginning on July 8, 2025, as initially planned, the scheme will now take effect on October 8, 2025. This delay aims to better align with shipping schedules between Ghana and the EU, ensuring that timber shipments are covered by FLEGT licenses upon arrival.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269

This regulation establishes the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities, or ELAN. ELAN is a centralized electronic system designed to monitor and manage trade in agricultural products with third countries, with an interconnected with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. The regulation specifies which documents, such as import/export licenses and certificates of authenticity, will be processed through ELAN. It also defines access rights for different authorities, sets rules for data storage, and establishes a 10-year data retention period.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268

This regulation amends existing delegated regulations to facilitate the integration of agricultural trade-related documents into the EU Single Window Environment for Customs via ELAN. It introduces electronic data models (ELAN1L-AGRIM and ELAN1L-AGREX) for licenses and clarifies procedures for license transfers and information retrieval from ELAN. It also allows for paper-based documents as a backup during system outages. Important changes include the introduction of data models, the phasing out of existing license templates, and transitional rules for the ELAN system.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1339

This regulation establishes technical standards for collection bodies using the European Single Access Point (ESAP). It focuses on data validation, electronic seals, data licensing (mandating Creative Commons licenses), API characteristics, metadata standards (in ISO 20022 format), and data provision timelines. The aim is to ensure data uniformity and interoperability on the ESAP, targeting a maximum of 60 minutes after submission and validation.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1330

This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of lysine from China. Following an investigation, the EU has finalized these duties to protect the Union industry. The regulation specifies the duty rates for various Chinese producers and “all other” imports. It clarifies the scope of the product, calculation of normal value, analysis of injury to the Union industry, and determination of the appropriate measures. Essential aspects include the exact product definitions, duty rates, and requirements for commercial invoices to benefit from specific company duty rates.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1338

This regulation sets implementing technical standards (ITS) for the European Single Access Point (ESAP). The focus is on functionalities like standardized API, identification of entities submitting information (using Legal Entity Identifiers – LEIs), classification of information types, and categorization of entity sizes and industry sectors. These standards ensure that the ESAP provides easy access to financial and sustainability-related information through a standardized interface.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1334

This regulation mandates the registration of imports of phosphorous acid originating in the People’s Republic of China. This action is a preliminary step in an anti-dumping investigation. This means importers need to properly document and register their imports. This registration is a prerequisite for potential retroactive application of anti-dumping duties.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271

This regulation amends several existing implementing regulations to streamline agricultural trade-related documents via the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN) and the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. It updates definitions, specifies that licenses should align with ELAN data models (ELAN1L-AGRIM, ELAN1L-AGREX), sets rules for customs access, and introduces transitional provisions for the switch to ELAN. It also introduces two new tariff quota numbers for rice imports from Bangladesh.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344

This regulation implements tariff measures on goods originating from or exported from Belarus and Russia, preventing market disruption and protecting EU producers. It modifies the “Origin” and “Specific entries” sections in the annexes of several existing regulations. The “Origin” section is updated to exclude Belarus, Russia and other countries depending on the quota. The “Specific entries” section is updated to include a statement that the licenses cannot be used for the products originating in the excluded countries.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272

This regulation establishes the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). It aims to streamline and secure the exchange and storage of documents for trade in agricultural products with third countries, and ensure the authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of trade-related documents. It specifies types of documents, technical requirements for data models, the procedures for issuance and validity checks, and establishes a phased implementation timeline between 2025 and 2028, with contingency provisions.

UN Regulation No. 131

This regulation concerns the approval of motor vehicles with regard to Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) for M2, M3, N2, and N3 vehicles. It aims to ensure these vehicles can automatically detect potential collisions, warn the driver, and activate brakes to mitigate collisions, operating only in critical situations to avoid false warnings and unnecessary interventions.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1337

This regulation amends Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, specifically authorizing the use of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as a carrier in colour tablets for the decorative colouring of poultry eggshells. It allows manufacturers to legally use E 1202 for this purpose within the EU, provided it is used *quantum satis* (as much as required).

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350

This regulation amends the existing Regulation (EU) 2025/202, which sets fishing opportunities for 2025 and 2026. The amendments adjust total allowable catches (TAC) for species such as anchovy and Northern prawn, implement technical measures for Northern prawn in the Skagerrak, modify measures for European eel, and incorporate catch limits for cod and chub mackerel.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 to incorporate the “Annual Improvements to IFRS Accounting Standards – Volume 11.” These improvements streamline and clarify existing standards in IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7. The amendments apply for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026, with earlier application permitted.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-513/24, Commission v Poland

The Court of Justice of the European Union found Poland failed to implement Directive (EU) 2019/789 concerning copyright rules applicable to certain online transmissions and retransmissions of TV and radio programs. Poland was ordered to pay a lump sum of EUR 8,300,000.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-495/23, Vodoslovje

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of EU law concerning extended producer responsibility schemes, freedom of establishment, and freedom to provide services. The case is related to the interpretation of EU law concerning the establishment of a monopoly for the collective fulfillment of extended producer responsibility obligations.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-106/23, Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux ASBL v Région wallonne

The Court of Justice of the European Union found Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/484 is valid. The Implementing Decision 2022/484 provides derogations from Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 concerning greening payments for the claim year 2022. These derogations allowed Member States to consider land lying fallow as a distinct crop and ecological focus area, and permitted the use of plant protection products on such land. This act is related to the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-312/23, Konreo

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 205 of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) and the principle of proportionality. It confirms that Member States can simultaneously deny VAT deductions to a recipient and hold them jointly liable for the supplier’s unpaid VAT, if the recipient knew or should have known about the VAT evasion.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-301/23, VIK

The Court of Justice of the European Union declared the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. This case is related to the request on interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. The CJEU emphasized that a national court must clearly explain why the interpretation of EU law is necessary to resolve the dispute.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-712/22, KF

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Member States cannot impose residency requirements that discriminate against frontier workers and their families when it comes to social advantages like integration assistance for disabled children. This case is related to the social security and freedom of movement for workers within the EU. A residency requirement is a violation of the right of frontier workers.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-265/23, UPFR

This judgment clarifies that EU law does not mandate Member States to establish a minimum flat-rate remuneration for phonogram producers. Remuneration should be “equitable” or “appropriate,” meaning it should reflect the economic value of the use of the rights. National courts must guarantee the proper balance between their interests and those of phonogram users.
The national courts must interpret national law in conformity with EU law and that any limitations on these rights must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights, and be proportionate to a legitimate objective of general interest.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-622/22, Purefun Group

The Court of Justice of the European Union considered that the EU Trade Mark Directive doesn’t prevent national systems from protecting company names, even if the protection is similar to that of a trade mark. Member States can allow the proprietor of a company name to prohibit a third party from using an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services. The proprietor is required to describe and limit the nature of the activities falling within its object with sufficient precision to enable third parties to be effectively informed of them.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-701/22, Farmacia Pharmamars

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts. The court ruled that that operating a pharmacy does not constitute a “non-economic service of general interest” and operating a pharmacy does fall within the concept of “social and other specific services”.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-205/23, Telekom Romania Mobile Communications

This judgment clarifies that a tariff option that limits bandwidth for video streaming, even if it doesn’t discriminate between different video providers, is generally not allowed. The Court emphasized that internet traffic should be treated equally, and any differentiation must be based on objective technical requirements, not commercial considerations.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-614/22, Lufthansa CityLine

The judgment states that Article 9 of Regulation No 300/2008 does not prevent a Member State from having an authority other than the designated “appropriate authority” responsible for monitoring compliance with national regulations governing private security activities at airports.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-157/23, AZ

The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 2(c)(ii) of Directive 2014/41/EU, which defines “issuing authority.” An administrative authority can be considered an “issuing authority” if it acts as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings and has the competence to order the gathering of evidence under national law, even if judicial authorization is required for certain investigative measures that interfere with fundamental rights.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-655/22, GP

This judgment clarifies on which date to assess when Regulation No. 1215/2012 should be applied and clarifies which EU regulation applies in the case of claims for compensation for the non-contractual use of immovable property. This regulation will be interpreted if a person domiciled in one Member State can be sued in another for the non-contractual use of immovable property.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-574/22, Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo

The judgment has stated that bad faith in registering a trade mark overrides the limitation in consequence of acquiescence. If bad faith is established, the acquiescence period does not prevent an invalidity action.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1201 of 12 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/530 as regards its date of application

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1201 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/530, specifically concerning the date of application of the FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) licensing scheme for timber imports from Ghana. The original regulation was set to apply from July 8, 2025, but this amendment postpones the application date to October 8, 2025. This adjustment is made to accommodate shipping timelines between Ghana and the EU, ensuring that timber shipments arriving in the EU are appropriately covered by FLEGT licenses.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 directly amends Article 3 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/530 by replacing the original application date of July 8, 2025, with the new date of October 8, 2025. Article 2 specifies that this amending regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, but it will apply from July 8, 2025. This seemingly contradictory application date in Article 2 refers to the entry into force of the amendment itself, while the substantive change regarding the FLEGT licensing scheme’s start date is effective from October 8, 2025, as stated in the amended Article 3 of Regulation 2025/530.

The most important provision is the change in the application date of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/530, pushing it back to October 8, 2025. This adjustment is crucial for timber importers and exporters dealing with Ghana, as it provides a grace period to ensure that timber shipments en route to the EU have sufficient time to comply with the FLEGT licensing requirements, preventing potential trade disruptions.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269 of 6 May 2025 laying down rules supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the electronic system for agricultural non-customs formalities (ELAN) to monitor and manage trade and market in agricultural products

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269 establishes the legal framework for the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). ELAN is designed to monitor and manage trade and the market in agricultural products by creating a centralized electronic system for handling non-customs formalities. The regulation aims to streamline cooperation between authorities, ensure secure information exchange, and interconnect with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. It specifies which documents are to be processed through ELAN, defines access rights for different authorities, and sets rules for data storage and retention periods.

The regulation consists of 8 articles. It defines the scope of ELAN, specifying that it applies to documents required for trade with third countries in agricultural products, including import and export licenses, certificates of authenticity, and other documents related to tariff rate quotas. It outlines the obligations and rights of the Commission in maintaining and overseeing ELAN. It also specifies who has access to the data within ELAN, including national and third-country issuing authorities, customs authorities, and the Commission. Finally, it sets the rules for the storage and retention of documents and data within the system, with a general retention period of 10 years.

The most important provisions of this regulation concern data access and retention. The regulation ensures that only authorized parties have access to sensitive trade information, balancing the need for transparency with data protection. The 10-year data retention period is also significant, as it allows for the retrieval of documents for dispute resolution or audits, ensuring accountability and compliance with Union rules.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268 of 6 May 2025 amending Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/1237 and (EU) 2020/760 as a consequence of the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN)

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268 amends Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/1237 and (EU) 2020/760 to accommodate the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). The amendments aim to integrate agricultural trade-related documents into the EU Single Window Environment for Customs by making them available electronically. This will streamline the process for customs authorities in Member States. The Regulation facilitates the transition from paper-based licenses to electronic data models (ELAN1L-AGRIM and ELAN1L-AGREX) and sets rules for their use. It also addresses scenarios where ELAN may be temporarily unavailable, allowing for fallback solutions like paper documents.

The Regulation is structured around amendments to two existing Delegated Regulations. It modifies Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1237 by adding definitions related to ELAN, updating requirements for import and export licenses, and clarifying procedures for license transfers. It also removes the obligation to notify ‘B’ licenses and issue licenses for garlic imports. Furthermore, it amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/760 to include ELAN-related regulations in the list of applicable rules, adjust requirements for proof of release for free circulation or export, and remove the requirement for customs declarations to include invoice numbers. The Regulation also includes transitional provisions to manage the shift to the ELAN system.

The most important provisions of this act are those related to the transition to electronic licenses and the use of the ELAN system. Specifically, the introduction of the ELAN1L-AGRIM and ELAN1L-AGREX data models, the gradual replacement of existing license templates, and the rules for using electronic licenses and retrieving information from ELAN will significantly impact how agricultural products are traded within the EU. The provisions allowing for paper-based documents as a fallback solution during the transitional period and in cases of system unavailability are also crucial for ensuring continuity in trade operations.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1339 of 10 July 2025 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to certain tasks of the collection bodies

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1339 of 10 July 2025, which lays down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 regarding certain tasks of collection bodies within the European Single Access Point (ESAP) framework. The regulation aims to harmonize how collection bodies make information available on the ESAP, ensuring uniform data quality and interoperability. It specifies technical validations, electronic seal requirements, data licensing, API characteristics, metadata standards, and time limits for data provision. This regulation ensures that the ESAP functions efficiently and provides accessible, reliable information to users.

The regulation consists of 8 articles and an annex, detailing specific requirements for collection bodies.

* **Article 1** outlines the technical automated validations that collection bodies must perform on submitted information, including compliance with machine-readable formats, data completeness, and metadata consistency. It sets a 60-minute target for notifying submitting entities of rejection, with exceptions for major incidents.
* **Article 2** specifies the characteristics of qualified electronic seals, requiring compliance with Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1506 and conformance level LT or higher. It also mandates the inclusion of the legal entity identifier in the digital certificate, where available.
* **Article 3** addresses open standard licenses, mandating the use of Creative Commons public domain dedication (CC0) for unrestricted data use and re-use, except for copyrighted material, which should use Creative Commons Licence BY-NC-ND or equivalent.
* **Article 4** details the characteristics of the data collection API, ensuring it allows for data exchange, supports specified formats, relies on secure protocols, and incorporates necessary updates.
* **Article 5** specifies the characteristics of metadata that collection bodies must provide to the ESAP, requiring a common format in accordance with the ISO 20022 methodology.
* **Article 6** sets time limits for collection bodies to provide information to the ESAP, targeting a maximum of 60 minutes after submission and validation, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, during which ESMA must be informed.
* **Article 7** provides an indicative list and characteristics of acceptable data formats, including HTML, PDF, txt, XML, XBRL, and inline XBRL.
* **Article 8** states that the regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall apply from 10 July 2026.

The main provisions of this act that may be the most important for its use are:

* **Technical Validation and Timelines (Article 1 & 6):** The strict requirements for technical validation and the 60-minute timeline for both providing feedback on submissions and making data available to ESAP are critical. Collection bodies need to ensure their systems can meet these requirements to avoid delays and ensure data quality.
* **Data Formats (Article 7):** The specification of acceptable data formats is crucial for entities submitting information. Ensuring compliance with these formats (HTML, PDF, txt, XML, XBRL, etc.) is essential for the data to be processed and made available on ESAP.
* **Metadata Standards (Article 5 & Annex):** The detailed metadata requirements outlined in Article 5 and the Annex are vital for the ESAP search function. Collection bodies must ensure that all relevant metadata is accurately provided in the specified formats (ISO 20022) to facilitate effective data retrieval.
* **Open Standard Licensing (Article 3):** The use of Creative Commons licenses (CC0 and CC BY-NC-ND) for data re-use is significant. It promotes the accessibility and re-usability of the data available through ESAP, fostering innovation and transparency.
* **Qualified Electronic Seals (Article 2):** The requirements for qualified electronic seals, including compliance with Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1506 and the inclusion of legal entity identifiers, are important for ensuring the authenticity and integrity of submitted information.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1330 of 10 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of lysine originating in the People’s Republic of China

Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1330:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of lysine originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It follows an anti-dumping investigation initiated in May 2024 after a complaint from the Union industry (Metex Noovistago, now Eurolysine). The regulation finalizes the provisional duties imposed earlier and specifies the duty rates for different Chinese producers and all other imports from China.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured as follows:

* **Procedure:** Details the steps of the investigation, including initiation, registration of imports, provisional measures, and subsequent procedures like disclosures and consultations with interested parties.
* **Product Concerned and Like Product:** Defines the scope of the investigation, clarifying that it includes lysine and its esters, salts thereof, regardless of the application (feed, pharmaceutical, food). It addresses claims to exclude certain forms of lysine (like lysine sulphate or food-grade lysine) from the duties.
* **Dumping:** Explains how the normal value (domestic price in the exporting country) and export price were determined, including adjustments made. It confirms the existence of significant distortions in the PRC and justifies the choice of Colombia as a representative country for determining costs. It addresses comments on benchmarks for raw materials like coal and labor.
* **Injury:** Assesses the injury suffered by the Union industry due to the dumped imports, considering factors like Union consumption, import volumes and market share, and prices. It addresses claims regarding the source and transparency of import data.
* **Causation:** Establishes the causal link between the dumped imports from China and the injury to the Union industry, dismissing arguments that other factors were the primary cause.
* **Level of Measures:** Determines the level of anti-dumping duties needed to remove the injury, considering the injury margin and target profit for the Union industry.
* **Union Interest:** Examines whether imposing duties is in the overall interest of the Union, considering the impact on the Union industry, importers, users, and consumers. It addresses arguments related to security of supply and environmental concerns.
* **Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures:** Imposes the definitive anti-dumping duties, specifying the rates for individual companies and all other imports from China. It includes provisions to prevent circumvention of the duties. It also addresses the retroactivity of the measures.

**Main provisions and changes:**

* **Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties:** Confirms the imposition of duties, but at levels different from the provisional duties.
* **Product Scope:** Clarifies the scope to include all forms of lysine, rejecting requests for exclusions.
* **Normal Value Calculation:** Adjusts benchmarks for coal and labor costs based on new evidence.
* **Import Data:** Revises import data for lysine sulphate based on Eurostat data for 2023.
* **Injury Margins:** Sets definitive injury elimination levels for cooperating exporting producers and all other companies.

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

* **Article 1:** Specifies the exact product subject to the duty, including CN codes and TARIC codes. It also lists the definitive anti-dumping duty rates for specific Chinese companies and the “all other” rate.
* **Article 1(3):** Sets out the requirements for the commercial invoice needed to benefit from individual company duty rates. This invoice must include a signed declaration from an official of the exporting entity.
* **Article 3:** Describes the conditions under which new exporting producers from the PRC can request to be subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1338 of 10 July 2025 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the functionalities of the European single access point

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1338 establishes implementing technical standards (ITS) for the European Single Access Point (ESAP), focusing on its functionalities as outlined in Regulation (EU) 2023/2859. The regulation aims to ensure that the ESAP provides easy access to financial and sustainability-related information through a standardized application programming interface (API). It specifies how entities submitting information should be identified, how information types should be classified, and how the size and industry sector of entities should be categorized to facilitate efficient searching and usage of the ESAP.

The regulation consists of 7 articles and an annex containing 3 tables.

* **Article 1** defines the characteristics of the data publication API, ensuring it supports various data formats, search and download functions, and unrestricted access to free services.
* **Article 2** mandates the use of Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) for identifying entities submitting information and the legal persons to which the information relates, ensuring compliance with the ISO 17442 standard.
* **Article 3** requires that submitted information be classified according to the types of information listed in Table 1 of the Annex.
* **Article 4** specifies how the size of entities should be categorized using metadata, referencing size categories set out in Table 2 of the Annex or indicating “other size” for entities not covered in that table.
* **Article 5** outlines the characterization of industry sectors, requiring entities to be classified according to Table 3 of the Annex or, for other entities, based on the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE).
* **Article 6** mandates a review of the technical standards related to the legal entity identifier by the ESAs, with a report to the Commission by December 31, 2026, including potential amendments.
* **Article 7** sets the entry into force and application date of the regulation, applying from July 10, 2026.

The most important provisions for users are those concerning the standardized use of LEIs for entity identification (Article 2), the classification of information types (Article 3 and Table 1 of the Annex), and the categorization of entity sizes and industry sectors (Articles 4 and 5, and Tables 2 and 3 of the Annex). These provisions ensure that the ESAP is structured in a way that allows stakeholders to efficiently search for and retrieve relevant information.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1334 of 10 July 2025 making imports of phosphorous acid originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1334 mandates the registration of imports of phosphorous acid originating in the People’s Republic of China. This action is a preliminary step in an anti-dumping investigation initiated in response to a complaint by a Union producer. The registration allows for the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the investigation concludes that dumping has occurred and is causing injury to the Union industry.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of phosphorous acid from China, specifying the product’s description, CAS and CUS numbers, and CN/TARIC codes. It also sets a nine-month expiration for the registration requirement. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation enters into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is a newly issued regulation.

The most important provision is Article 1, which instructs customs authorities to register imports of the specified phosphorous acid product from China. This means that importers of this product will need to ensure that their imports are properly documented and registered with customs. This registration is a prerequisite for the potential retroactive application of anti-dumping duties, which could significantly impact the financial implications of importing this product.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271 of 6 May 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1239, (EU) 2020/761, (EU) 2020/1988 and (EU) 2023/2834 as a consequence of the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN), and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 as regards two new tariff quota numbers for imports of rice from Bangladesh

Here’s a detailed description of the provisions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271 amends several existing regulations to facilitate the implementation of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). It ensures that agricultural trade-related documents can be submitted and accessed electronically via the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. The regulation also introduces new tariff quota numbers for rice imports from Bangladesh.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation amends Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1239, (EU) 2020/761, (EU) 2020/1988, and (EU) 2023/2834.

* **Amendments related to ELAN:**
* It updates definitions in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1239 to include ELAN-related terminology.
* It specifies that import and export licenses should be issued according to data models developed by the Commission for ELAN.
* It outlines rules for customs offices to access ELAN for control activities and quantity attributions.
* It sets rules for license transfers, corrections, and the provision of proof of release for free circulation or export within the ELAN system.
* It introduces Annex I.1 to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1239, which details the information Member States should provide in import and export licenses issued via ELAN.
* It includes transitional rules for the switch to the ELAN system, including testing periods and deadlines for mandatory use.
* **Amendments related to Tariff Rate Quotas:**
* It adapts Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 to ensure proper management of documents issued by third countries via ELAN.
* It specifies that license applications should be allowed for product codes referred to in the fiches for tariff quotas.
* It updates rules on how to complete specific sections of licenses to align with the new data models.
* It replaces templates for documents issued by third countries with a single data model, ELAN1L-TCDOC.
* It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 to introduce two new tariff quota numbers for imports of rice from Bangladesh.
* It integrates rules on details to be inserted in import license applications and import licenses for Basmati rice in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2834.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Electronic Submission and Access:** The core of this regulation is the shift to electronic submission and access of agricultural trade documents through ELAN.
* **Transitional Periods:** The regulation provides for transitional periods with specific dates for testing, voluntary use, and mandatory use of ELAN.
* **Data Models:** The regulation emphasizes the use of specific data models (ELAN1L-AGRIM, ELAN1L-AGREX, and ELAN1L-TCDOC) for licenses and documents.
* **Third-Country Documents:** The regulation sets rules for documents issued by third countries, including the use of the ELAN1L-TCDOC data model and transitional arrangements.
* **Rice Imports from Bangladesh:** The regulation introduces new tariff quota numbers for specific types of rice from Bangladesh, reflecting updated conversion rates.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344 of 9 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 and Regulation (EC) No 218/2007 as regards tariff measures for certain agricultural goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Belarus and Russia

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344 amends existing regulations concerning tariff rate quotas for certain agricultural goods. The main goal is to implement tariff measures on goods originating from or exported from Belarus and Russia, as outlined in Regulation (EU) 2025/1227. These measures aim to reduce the EU’s vulnerability to potential coercive actions by Russia and Belarus by preventing market disruption and protecting EU producers. The regulation modifies the rules for import and export licenses to reflect these tariff measures.

The regulation amends Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 and Regulation (EC) No 218/2007. The amendments primarily involve modifying the “Origin” and “Specific entries” sections in the annexes of these regulations. Specifically, for various tariff quotas, the “Origin” section is updated to exclude Belarus, Russia, and sometimes other countries like the United Kingdom, China, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, the United States of America, India, Pakistan, Guyana, Canada, Indonesia, Chile, Greenland, Iceland, New Zealand, and Uruguay. The “Specific entries” section is updated to require that licenses include a statement indicating that they cannot be used for products originating in the excluded countries.

The most important provisions for practical use are the changes to the “Origin” and “Specific entries” sections of the relevant tariff quotas. Businesses involved in importing agricultural goods under these quotas need to ensure that their products do not originate from the specified excluded countries (Belarus, Russia, and others, depending on the specific quota). They also need to ensure that their import licenses include the required statement in Section 24, indicating that the license is not valid for products from those countries. This regulation is designed to prevent products from Belarus and Russia from benefiting from the tariff quotas, supporting the EU’s broader trade policy objectives. ****

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272 of 6 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the electronic system for agricultural non-customs formalities (ELAN)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272 establishes the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). ELAN aims to streamline and secure the exchange and storage of documents required for non-customs formalities related to trade in agricultural products with third countries. The system will facilitate cooperation between authorities and customs, ensuring the authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of trade-related documents. ELAN will be interconnected with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs (EU CSW-CERTEX) to enable seamless information exchange.

The regulation is structured into four sections covering introductory and technical provisions, contingency measures, and final clauses. It defines the scope of ELAN, specifying the types of documents it will manage, such as import and export licenses and documents required for tariff rate quotas. The regulation also outlines the technical requirements for document formats, issuance procedures, and validity checks. A transitional period is established for the phased implementation of ELAN, starting with testing in July 2025 and full operation by October 2028. Contingency provisions are included to address system unavailability, ensuring business continuity through alternative document production and control methods.

Key provisions include the phased implementation timeline, requiring Member States to gradually adopt ELAN for different types of documents between 2025 and 2028. The regulation mandates that all documents in ELAN must comply with specific data models and be electronically sealed or signed. It also details procedures for handling system outages, including the use of paper documents and subsequent registration in ELAN once the system is restored. The interconnection with the EU CSW-CERTEX by October 6, 2028, is crucial for customs authorities to perform automatic verifications and report cleared quantities.

UN Regulation No 131 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M2, M3, N2 and N3 vehicles [2025/1329]

This is a description of UN Regulation No. 131, which concerns the approval of motor vehicles with regard to Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) for M2, M3, N2, and N3 vehicles. The regulation aims to ensure that these vehicles are equipped with systems that can automatically detect potential forward collisions, warn the driver, and activate the brakes to avoid or mitigate the severity of collisions. The system should operate only in critical driving situations and avoid intervening in uncritical scenarios, ensuring that the vehicle’s safe operation is not endangered in case of system failure. The regulation also addresses the need to minimize false warnings and braking events.

The regulation includes sections on scope, definitions, application for approval, approval process, specifications, test procedures, modification and extension of approval, conformity of production, penalties for non-conformity, discontinuation of production, and transitional provisions. It also has annexes that provide additional information on communication, arrangement of approval markings, and special requirements for the safety aspects of electronic control systems. The main provisions cover general requirements, specific requirements for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian scenarios, driver interruption capabilities, deactivation conditions, warning indications, and provisions for periodic technical inspections.

Key provisions include the specific performance requirements for AEBS in different scenarios, such as speed reduction capabilities when approaching a stationary or moving vehicle, or a pedestrian. The regulation sets out detailed test procedures to verify these performance requirements, including conditions for the test surface, ambient temperature, visibility, and vehicle conditions. It also specifies requirements for warning signals, failure detection, and deactivation of the AEBS. The regulation emphasizes the importance of minimizing false reactions and includes specific scenarios to test the system’s ability to avoid unnecessary interventions.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1337 of 10 July 2025 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as a carrier in colour tablets for the decorative colouring of poultry eggshells

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1337 amends Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, specifically concerning the use of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as a carrier in colour tablets for decorative coloring of poultry eggshells. The regulation updates the list of authorized food additives to include this specific use of E 1202. It allows for the use of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as a carrier in colour tablets for the decorative colouring of poultry eggshells.

The regulation consists of a preamble that outlines the reasoning and legal basis for the amendment, followed by two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended as per the Annex to this regulation. 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 adds a new entry for ‘E 1202 Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone’ in Part 1 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, specifying its use at *quantum satis* (i.e. “as much as required”) in colour tablets for decorative coloring of poultry eggshells.

The most important provision of this regulation is the inclusion of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as an authorized carrier in colour tablets for decorative coloring of poultry eggshells. This means that manufacturers can now legally use E 1202 for this specific purpose within the EU, provided they adhere to the *quantum satis* principle, using only the amount necessary to achieve the desired effect.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350 of 8 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2025/202 fixing for 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters

This Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350 amends the existing Regulation (EU) 2025/202, which sets fishing opportunities for 2025 and 2026. The amendments are necessary to incorporate new scientific advice, outcomes of consultations with third countries, and decisions from regional fisheries management organizations. These changes affect specific fish stocks and related technical measures in Union and non-Union waters.

The Regulation is structured as an amending act, directly modifying the text of Regulation (EU) 2025/202. It includes amendments to articles and annexes of the original regulation. The key changes include: adjustments to total allowable catches (TAC) for anchovy, Northern prawn, sprat, and red seabream; implementation of technical measures for Northern prawn in the Skagerrak; modifications to measures for European eel; and incorporation of catch limits for cod and chub mackerel as agreed with international organizations and third countries.

The most important provisions for practical use are the revised TACs for various fish stocks, as these directly impact the allowable catch quantities for fishermen. The technical measures for Northern prawn in the Skagerrak and the updated rules for European eel fishing, including the derogation for assisting downstream migration, are also crucial for compliance and sustainable fishing practices.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331 of 9 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 as regards International Financial Reporting Standards 1, 7, 9 and 10, and International Accounting Standard 7

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331 amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 to incorporate the “Annual Improvements to IFRS Accounting Standards – Volume 11” issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. These improvements streamline and clarify existing standards, addressing inconsistencies and wording clarifications in IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7. The amendments are applicable for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026, with earlier application permitted.

The regulation is structured with an Article section and an Annex. Article 1 specifies the standards being amended: IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7. Article 2 sets the mandatory application date for the amendments, and Article 3 states the regulation’s entry into force. The Annex provides the detailed amendments to each of the specified accounting standards. These amendments include the addition of new paragraphs specifying the effective date of the changes and modifications to existing paragraphs to clarify specific accounting treatments.

The most important provisions for users are the specific amendments to each standard, as detailed in the Annex, and the effective date of these amendments. Companies need to carefully review the changes to IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7 to ensure compliance for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026. The option for earlier application allows companies to adopt these improvements sooner if they choose, provided they disclose this early adoption.

Arrêt de la Cour (septième chambre) du 10 juillet 2025.#Commission européenne contre République de Pologne.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Directive (UE) 2019/789 – Droits d’auteur et droits voisins – Règles sur l’exercice du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins applicables à certaines transmissions en ligne d’organismes de radiodiffusion et retransmissions de programmes de télévision et de radio – Transposition partielle – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Sanctions pécuniaires – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire – Date de la cessation du manquement.#Affaire C-212/23.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a failure by Poland to implement Directive (EU) 2019/789, which concerns copyright rules applicable to certain online transmissions and retransmissions of TV and radio programs. The European Commission brought the case against Poland for not adopting the necessary laws to comply with the Directive by the deadline and for failing to inform the Commission about these measures. The Court found Poland in breach of its obligations and ordered it to pay a lump sum of EUR 8,300,000.

The judgment is structured as follows: It starts by outlining the Commission’s claims, which include a request for a lump sum payment and daily penalties for continued non-compliance. It then describes the legal framework, focusing on Directive 2019/789 and its objectives. The judgment details the pre-litigation procedure, including the exchange of letters between the Commission and Poland, and the arguments presented by both sides. The Court then assesses whether Poland failed to meet its obligations under EU law. Finally, the Court addresses the Commission’s request for financial penalties, considering the severity and duration of the infringement, and Poland’s ability to pay.

The most important provisions of the act are the following:
– **Finding of Failure:** The Court declares that Poland failed to transpose Directive 2019/789 into national law by the deadline and did not inform the Commission of the measures taken.
– **Financial Penalty:** Poland is ordered to pay a lump sum of EUR 8,300,000 to the Commission.
– **Cost Allocation:** Poland is responsible for its own legal costs and those incurred by the Commission.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2025.INTERZERO Trajnostne rešitve za svet brez odpadkov d.o.o. and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services – Articles 49 and 56 TFEU – Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties – Services in the internal market – Directive 2006/123/EC – Scope – Monopolies and services of general economic interest – Requirements to be evaluated – Article 15 – Waste – Directive 2008/98/EC – Extended producer responsibility schemes – Articles 8 and 8a – Creation of a monopoly on the market for collective fulfilment of extended producer responsibility obligations – Non-profit-making single organisation – Article 106(2) TFEU – Concept of an ‘undertaking’ – Detailed rules for establishment and operation – Transitional arrangements – Obligation on producers subject to extended responsibility to comply with that scheme – Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to conduct a business and right to property – Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations – Proportionality.Case C-254/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of several EU laws regarding extended producer responsibility schemes, freedom of establishment, and freedom to provide services. The case originates from Slovenia and involves a challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Slovenian Law on Environmental Protection (ZVO-2).

The judgment addresses the following key aspects:

1. **Essence of the Act:** The judgment clarifies the interpretation of EU law concerning the establishment of a monopoly for the collective fulfillment of extended producer responsibility obligations. It examines the conditions under which such a monopoly can be justified, the restrictions it can impose on businesses, and the measures required to protect the rights of existing operators. The CJEU provides guidance on how to balance environmental protection goals with the fundamental freedoms and rights guaranteed by EU law.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:** The judgment is structured around the questions referred by the Slovenian Constitutional Court. It begins by outlining the relevant EU and Slovenian legal frameworks. It then addresses each question in turn, providing detailed legal analysis and interpretation. The main provisions discussed include:

* Articles 49, 56, and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) regarding freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, and services of general economic interest.
* Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market.
* Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended by Directive 2018/851, concerning extended producer responsibility.
* Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding freedom to conduct a business and right to property.
* The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

3. **Main Provisions for Use:** The most important provisions for practical use are the interpretations provided by the CJEU regarding:

* The conditions under which a legal person with an exclusive right to carry out collective fulfillment of extended producer responsibility obligations can be considered an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest.
* The justification for restrictions on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services when establishing a monopoly for extended producer responsibility.
* The need for transitional measures and compensation when changing from a competitive market to a monopolistic system.
* The permissible restrictions on capital links, family ties, and authorized activities to prevent conflicts of interest.
* The conditions under which mandatory contracts with a single organization can be imposed on producers.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux ASBL v Région wallonne.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common agricultural policy – Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Practices beneficial for the climate and the environment – Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/484 – Validity – Obligation to state reasons – Invasion of Ukraine by Russia – Increase in the agricultural production potential of the European Union – Derogation from certain conditions relating to the direct greening payment – Land lying fallow considered as a distinct crop and ecological focus area even if it has been grazed, harvested for production purposes or cultivated – Necessary and justifiable nature of the measures adopted.Case C-287/24.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the validity of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/484. The case was brought to the CJEU by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) in a dispute between Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux ASBL (a Belgian bird protection association) and the Région wallonne (Walloon Region, Belgium). The core issue is whether the Implementing Decision 2022/484, which allows temporary derogations from certain greening payment conditions under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) due to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, is valid.

The judgment examines the validity of Implementing Decision 2022/484, which provides derogations from Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 concerning greening payments for the claim year 2022. These derogations allowed Member States to consider land lying fallow as a distinct crop and ecological focus area, even if it was grazed, harvested, or cultivated, and to permit the use of plant protection products on such land. The Court assesses whether the decision complies with Article 69 of Regulation No 1307/2013 and Article 45 of Delegated Regulation No 639/2014, focusing on the obligation to state reasons and the necessary and justifiable nature of the measures.

The Court concludes that Implementing Decision 2022/484 is valid. It finds that the decision adequately states the reasons for its adoption, particularly concerning the emergency caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the need to increase agricultural production potential. The Court also determines that the derogations are proportionate, as they are limited in scope and duration, and Member States are required to consider environmental objectives when implementing them.

**** This act is related to the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which led to the adoption of Implementing Decision 2022/484 to mitigate the impact on agricultural production within the EU.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.KONREO, v. o. s., en qualité d’administrateur judiciaire de la société débitrice FAU s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 205 – Joint and several liability – Conditions and scope of liability – Combating VAT evasion – VAT not paid by the supplier – Refusal to grant the right to deduct VAT to the recipient of the supply – Possibility of holding the recipient of the supply jointly and severally liable for payment of VAT due from the supplier – Principle of proportionality.Case C-276/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Article 205 of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) and the principle of proportionality. The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, focusing on the joint and several liability for VAT payment when the recipient of goods is also denied VAT deduction due to involvement in tax fraud. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which national practices can impose VAT obligations on parties involved in transactions where tax evasion is suspected.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Sets the context of the preliminary ruling request and the relevant legal articles.
2. **Legal Context:**
* Summarizes Article 193 of the VAT Directive, which establishes the general rule that VAT is payable by the taxable person making the supply.
* Refers to Articles 194-200 and 202-204, which outline exceptions where other persons may be liable for VAT.
* Quotes Article 205 of the VAT Directive, which allows Member States to implement joint and several liability for VAT payment.
* Describes the relevant Czech legislation, specifically Paragraphs 171 and 172 of the Tax Procedure Code and Paragraph 109 of the Law on VAT, which govern joint and several liability in the Czech Republic.
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Details the factual background of the case, involving Konreo (insolvency administrator of FAU s.r.o.) and the Appellate Tax Directorate, concerning FAU’s liability for VAT not paid by its supplier, Verami International Company s.r.o. It outlines the tax authorities’ findings of tax evasion, the insolvency of both companies, and the legal arguments presented by both parties. The referring court’s question asks whether Article 205 of the VAT Directive, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, precludes a national practice where VAT liability is applied to the recipient of a transaction, even if that recipient has been denied a tax deduction due to involvement in tax fraud.
4. **Consideration of the Question Referred:**
* **Article 205 and Member States’ Discretion:** The Court reiterates that Article 205 allows Member States to adopt measures for efficient VAT collection, including holding a person other than the one primarily liable jointly and severally liable for VAT payment.
* **Limits to Member States’ Discretion:** The Court emphasizes that Member States must adhere to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality when implementing joint and several liability. Measures must not exceed what is necessary to preserve the rights of the public exchequer.
* **Preventing Tax Evasion:** The Court acknowledges that preventing tax evasion is a legitimate objective and that EU law supports measures against abusive practices.
* **Recipient’s Knowledge of Evasion:** The Court notes that Article 205 allows a Member State to hold a person jointly and severally liable if they knew or should have known that the VAT would go unpaid.
* **Application to the Czech Case:** The Court observes that the Czech law transposing Article 205 includes conditions for joint and several liability, such as payments made to accounts outside the Czech Republic, and that the national courts require additional evidence that the taxable person knew or should have known that the purpose was to avoid paying tax.
* **Recourse Claim:** The Court notes that Czech law provides for a recourse claim by the person held jointly and severally liable against the taxable person.
* **Refusal of Right to Deduct VAT:** The Court recalls that national authorities must refuse the right to deduct VAT if it is established that the right is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends.
* **Concurrent Application of Measures:** The Court concludes that the VAT Directive allows the tax authorities to independently apply the refusal of the right to deduct VAT and joint and several liability under Article 205, without having to choose between the two measures.
* **Proportionality:** The Court finds that applying both measures to a taxable person who knew or should have known that they were participating in VAT evasion does not infringe the principle of proportionality.
* **Objectives of the Measures:** The Court states that the refusal of the right to deduct VAT and joint and several liability pursue distinct and complementary objectives: combating tax evasion and ensuring efficient VAT collection.
* **Unjust Enrichment:** The Court notes that the imposition of joint and several liability does not result in unjust enrichment of the tax authorities.
5. **Costs:** Allocates costs in the proceedings.
6. **Ruling:** Summarizes the Court’s answer to the question referred, stating that Article 205 of the VAT Directive does not preclude a national practice that imposes joint and several liability on a taxable person who was refused the right to deduct input VAT due to participation in VAT evasion.

The most important provision is the clarification that Article 205 of the VAT Directive does not prevent national tax authorities from simultaneously denying VAT deductions to a recipient of goods or services and holding them jointly and severally liable for the supplier’s unpaid VAT, provided the recipient knew or should have known they were participating in VAT evasion. This confirms the power of Member States to implement measures against VAT evasion, even when they appear to impose a double burden on the involved parties.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.„Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia“ EAD v ED.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 3(1) – Contract for the provision of water and wastewater services – Date on which the claim becomes due and the starting-point of the limitation period of the claim – Requirement to present the reasons justifying the need for an interpretation of certain provisions of European Union law by the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details – Inadmissibility.Case C-294/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling from a Bulgarian court concerning the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC). The case revolves around a dispute between a water and wastewater service provider (‘VIK’) and a consumer (‘ED’) regarding unpaid water consumption invoices. The Bulgarian court seeks clarification on whether a specific term in VIK’s standard contract, which sets the payment due date 30 days after the invoice date, could be considered unfair under EU law, especially when VIK doesn’t consistently issue monthly invoices.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Briefly states the subject matter – a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.
2. **Background:** Describes the factual and legal context of the dispute, including the parties involved, the relevant provisions of Bulgarian law (Law on Obligations and Contracts), and the standard terms and conditions of the water supply contract.
3. **The Question Referred:** States the question posed by the Bulgarian court, focusing on whether the term in VIK’s standard contract concerning the payment deadline and its impact on the limitation period could create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.
4. **Admissibility:** This section is crucial. The CJEU assesses whether it can even answer the question. It emphasizes that a national court must clearly explain why the interpretation of EU law is necessary to resolve the dispute.
5. **Decision on Admissibility:** The Court finds the request inadmissible. It concludes that the referring court has not sufficiently explained why the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 is necessary to resolve the dispute, as the core issue seems to be VIK’s failure to issue monthly invoices (Article 33(1)), not the payment deadline itself (Article 33(2)).
6. **Costs:** States that the national court will decide on costs.
7. **Operative Part:** Formally declares the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.

The most important aspect of this judgment is the CJEU’s decision to declare the request inadmissible. This highlights the importance of national courts providing sufficient justification for their requests for preliminary rulings. The CJEU needs to understand precisely why the interpretation of EU law is essential to resolving the specific dispute before the national court. In this case, the CJEU felt the link between the question asked and the actual problem in the main proceedings (the failure to issue monthly invoices) was too weak.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.PE, légalement représentée par ses parents v Städteregion Aachen.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Migrant workers – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 3 – Matters covered – Freedom of movement for workers – Article 45 TFEU – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Article 7 – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Disabled minor child of a frontier worker – Integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children – Residence requirement – Proportionality.Case C-257/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning social security and freedom of movement for workers within the EU. The case revolves around a request for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses whether integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children falls under the scope of EU regulations concerning social security and free movement of workers. The case specifically examines a situation where a disabled child of a frontier worker (a worker who lives in one country but works in another) was denied these benefits by Germany due to a residency requirement.

The court examines:
* The scope of Regulation No 883/2004, particularly whether the integration assistance constitutes a “social security benefit” or a “special non-contributory cash benefit” under the regulation.
* Whether the residency requirement for receiving integration assistance constitutes discrimination against frontier workers under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, which guarantees equal social and tax advantages.
* Whether the restriction of benefits based on residency is a justified restriction of the rights of EU citizens under Article 20 and Article 21(1) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which concern citizenship of the Union and the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The CJEU ruled that the integration assistance in question does not fall under the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 because it is based on an individual assessment of needs rather than objective criteria. However, the court found that denying the benefit based on a residency requirement violates Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011, as it constitutes indirect discrimination against frontier workers. The court reasoned that such a requirement restricts the freedom of movement for workers and goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives of ensuring a genuine link between the claimant and the Member State and preserving the financial balance of the social security system.

**Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important takeaway from this judgment is that Member States cannot impose residency requirements that discriminate against frontier workers and their families when it comes to social advantages like integration assistance for disabled children. This ruling reinforces the principle of equal treatment and ensures that frontier workers can access social benefits in the country where they work, even if they reside in another Member State.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.DADA Music SRL and Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (UPFR) v Asociaţia Radiourilor Locale şi Regionale (ARLR).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Intellectual property – Collective management of copyright and related rights – Directive 2006/115/EEC – Article 8(2) – Broadcasting and communication to the public – Directive 2014/26/EU – Second subparagraph of Article 16(2) – Licensing – Radio broadcasting – Concepts of ‘equitable remuneration’ and ‘appropriate remuneration’ – Criteria for assessing the equitable or appropriate nature – Article 17(2) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fundamental right to the protection of intellectual property – Scope and interpretation of rights and principles – National legislation repealing a system of minimum flat-rate remuneration.Case C-37/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU directives on intellectual property rights, specifically regarding the remuneration of phonogram producers for the broadcasting of their works. The case originates from a dispute in Romania between a phonogram producers’ association (UPFR) and a local radio station (DADA Music SRL) regarding the payment of minimum flat-rate remuneration for broadcasting phonograms.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses questions referred by a Romanian court concerning the compatibility of Romanian legislation with EU law, specifically Directive 2006/115/EC and Directive 2014/26/EU, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Romanian legislation in question repealed a system of minimum flat-rate remuneration for phonogram producers, leading to the dispute.

The CJEU examines whether EU law requires Member States to guarantee a minimum flat-rate remuneration for rightholders, irrespective of the revenues obtained by broadcasting organizations. It also considers whether national legislation can abolish such minimum remuneration without altering the criteria for calculating remuneration and without providing a maximum period for negotiating new agreements.

The Court clarifies the concepts of “equitable remuneration” and “appropriate remuneration” as used in the directives, emphasizing that remuneration should be linked to the economic value of the use of the rights. It also discusses the criteria for assessing whether remuneration is equitable and reasonable, taking into account the interests of both rightholders and users.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

1. **No Obligation for Minimum Flat-Rate Remuneration:** The judgment clarifies that EU law does not mandate Member States to establish a minimum flat-rate remuneration for phonogram producers. Remuneration should be “equitable” or “appropriate,” meaning it should reflect the economic value of the use of the rights.
2. **Assessment of Equitable Remuneration:** National courts must verify whether the remuneration paid to rightholders guarantees a proper balance between their interests and those of phonogram users. This assessment should consider the economic value of the use of the rights, the nature and scope of the use, and the economic value of the service provided by the collective management organization.
3. **Charter of Fundamental Rights:** The judgment refers to Article 17(2) of the Charter, which protects intellectual property rights. Any limitations on these rights must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights, and be proportionate to a legitimate objective of general interest.
4. **Primacy of EU Law:** National courts must interpret national law in conformity with EU law. If national law cannot be interpreted in this way, the national court must give full effect to EU law, if necessary, disapplying conflicting national provisions. However, a directive cannot impose obligations on an individual, so it cannot be relied upon to disapply national law in a dispute between private parties.
5. **Discretion of Member States:** Member States have discretion in laying down the criteria for determining what constitutes equitable remuneration, but these criteria must comply with EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Purefun Group AB v Doggy AB.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive (EU) 2015/2436 – Free movement of goods – Articles 34 and 36 TFEU – Trade name – Company name – National legislation conferring an exclusive right on the proprietor of a company name.Case C-365/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the EU Trade Mark Directive (2015/2436) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) concerning the relationship between trade names and trade marks. The case originates from a dispute in Sweden between Purefun Group AB and Doggy AB, where Doggy AB claimed Purefun was infringing on its company name and trade mark by using a similar sign (‘DOGGIE’).

The judgment clarifies the extent to which national laws can protect company names in relation to trade marks, particularly concerning the free movement of goods within the EU. The CJEU was asked whether national laws can grant broad protection to company names, potentially hindering the use of similar signs by other businesses, even if the company name isn’t actively used for specific goods or services.

The court ruled that the EU Trade Mark Directive doesn’t prevent national systems from protecting company names, even if the protection is similar to that of a trade mark. Member States can allow the proprietor of a company name to prohibit a third party from using an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services. The Court also clarified that the absence of genuine use of a company name may, under certain conditions, lead to the revocation of that exclusive right and that the proprietor is required to describe and limit the nature of the activities falling within its object with sufficient precision to enable third parties to be effectively informed of them. This protection is allowed even if the national rules for company names are less strict than those for trade marks, as long as they don’t go beyond what’s necessary to protect industrial and commercial property. The judgment emphasizes that the protection of trade names is a matter for national law in the absence of EU harmonization.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Farmacija, d.o.o. v Občina Benedikt.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Procedures for the award of concession contracts – Directive 2014/23/EU – Article 4(2) – Non-economic services of general interest – Article 19 – Social and other specific services – Scope of those provisions – Activity consisting in the operation of a pharmacy establishment.Case C-715/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts. The case revolves around a dispute in Slovenia concerning the granting of an authorization to operate a pharmacy branch without a prior concession notice. The CJEU is asked to clarify whether operating a pharmacy constitutes a “non-economic service of general interest” or a “social and other specific service” under the Directive.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling and the dispute in the main proceedings.
* It then presents the relevant EU and Slovenian legal context, including articles from Directive 2014/23/EU and related Slovenian laws.
* The judgment then addresses the admissibility of the request, finding it admissible.
* It proceeds to answer the two questions posed by the referring tribunal.
* First, it determines that operating a pharmacy does not constitute a “non-economic service of general interest” under Article 4(2) of the Directive because it involves providing services for remuneration.
* Second, it concludes that operating a pharmacy does fall within the concept of “social and other specific services” under Article 19 of the Directive, as pharmacy services are included in Annex IV of the Directive under CPV code 85149000-5.
* Finally, the judgment addresses costs, stating that the national tribunal is responsible for the decision on costs.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important takeaways from this judgment are:

1. **Pharmacy services are NOT “non-economic services of general interest”**: This means that the full scope of Directive 2014/23/EU applies.
2. **Pharmacy services ARE “social and other specific services”**: This classification triggers a “light regime” under Article 19 of Directive 2014/23/EU, meaning that concessions for pharmacy services are subject to a simplified procurement process. Contracting authorities are required to publicize the intended award via a prior information notice and can group concession award notices on a quarterly basis.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Autoritatea Naţională pentru Administrare şi Reglementare în Comunicaţii v Telekom România Mobile Communications.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 – Measures concerning open internet access – Article 3(3) – Obligation on providers of internet access services to treat traffic equally and without discrimination, restriction or interference – Possibility, for those providers, to implement reasonable traffic management measures – Tariff option entailing a bandwidth limitation in respect of video streaming.Case C-367/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, which concerns open internet access. The case revolves around a Romanian telecommunications company, Telekom România Mobile Communications, and a tariff option it offered that limited bandwidth for video streaming. The Romanian National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM) considered this option incompatible with EU law. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether such a tariff option, which differentiates between types of internet traffic, is permissible under the Regulation.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, then presents the relevant legal framework, focusing on Regulation 2015/2120. It details the dispute in the main proceedings, the question referred by the Romanian court, and the CJEU’s consideration of that question. The Court examines Article 3 of Regulation 2015/2120, which aims to ensure equal and non-discriminatory treatment of internet traffic. It analyzes the obligations on internet access providers, the possibility of reasonable traffic management measures, and the exceptions to the non-discrimination principle. The judgment concludes with the CJEU’s answer to the question and a decision on costs.

The most important provision of the judgment is its interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation 2015/2120. The CJEU ruled that a tariff option that limits bandwidth for video streaming, even if it doesn’t discriminate between different video providers, is generally not allowed. The Court emphasized that internet traffic should be treated equally, and any differentiation must be based on objective technical requirements, not commercial considerations. The judgment clarifies that internet providers cannot offer options that prioritize certain types of traffic based on price or data allowance, as this undermines the principle of net neutrality.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Liège Airport Security v État belge, représenté par le Ministre de l’Intérieur.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 – Civil aviation security – Article 4 – Common basic standards – Article 9 – Appropriate authority – Member State’s obligation to designate a single authority to be responsible for the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of safety standards – Scope – National authority responsible for ensuring compliance with national regulations governing the exercise of private safety activities.Case C-783/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, which concerns civil aviation security. The case revolves around a question of whether a Member State can have multiple authorities involved in overseeing different aspects of aviation security, or if the regulation requires a single, exclusive authority. The judgment clarifies the scope of the “appropriate authority” designated under the regulation, particularly in relation to national regulations governing private security activities at airports.

The judgment addresses the question of whether Article 9 of Regulation No 300/2008 should be interpreted to mean that the designated “appropriate authority” is the only authority that can monitor the implementation of common basic standards for civil aviation security. The Court examines the wording, context, and objectives of the regulation. It refers to the Chicago Convention and its Annex 17, which addresses aviation security. The Court also considers previous case law to interpret the provision of EU law.

The CJEU ruled that Article 9 of Regulation No 300/2008 does not prevent a Member State from having an authority other than the designated “appropriate authority” responsible for monitoring compliance with national regulations governing private security activities at airports. This means that a national authority responsible for enforcing private security regulations can oversee private security firms operating at airports, even if another authority is designated to coordinate and monitor the implementation of common EU aviation security standards.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2025.WBS GmbH v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European Investigation Order (EIO) – Directive 2014/41/EU – Article 2(c)(ii) – Concept of ‘other competent authority acting in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings’ – Competence to order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law – Search measures requiring the authorisation of an investigating judge – Article 6(1) and (2) – Conditions for issuing an EIO.Case C-635/23.

This judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses the interpretation of the European Investigation Order (EIO) Directive, specifically concerning which authorities can issue an EIO. The case revolves around a request for the execution of an EIO in Germany, issued by the Latvian Office for Preventing and Combating Corruption (KNAB), which sought to conduct searches of business premises. The German court questioned whether the KNAB, as an administrative authority, could be considered a valid “issuing authority” under the EIO Directive, especially since Latvian law requires judicial authorization for such search measures.

The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 2(c)(ii) of Directive 2014/41/EU, which defines “issuing authority.” It specifies that an administrative authority can be considered an “issuing authority” if it acts as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings and has the competence to order the gathering of evidence under national law, even if judicial authorization is required for certain investigative measures that interfere with fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the issuing authority must be the one responsible for the criminal investigation, allowing them to assess the necessity and proportionality of the investigative measures.

The key provision clarified is Article 2(c)(ii) of Directive 2014/41/EU. The Court interprets that an administrative authority can be an “issuing authority” if it meets specific conditions: it is defined as competent by the issuing state, acts as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings, and has the power to order evidence gathering according to national law. This holds true even if a judicial authority must authorize investigative measures that interfere with fundamental rights. This interpretation ensures that the authority responsible for the investigation can effectively issue EIOs, promoting simplified and efficient cross-border judicial cooperation.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.G.M.K.-Z.B.M. v S.O.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 66 – Scope ratione temporis – Legal proceedings instituted by a claimant – Issue of an order for payment – Statement of opposition by the defendant to that order for payment seeking a review of the case concerned – Regulation (EU) No 44/2001 – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Article 6(1) – More than one defendant – Article 22(1) – Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property – Action for payment of compensation for the non-contractual use of immovable property situated in a Member State – Defendant domiciled in another Member State.Case C-99/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning jurisdiction in civil matters, specifically regarding claims for compensation for the non-contractual use of immovable property. The case revolves around a dispute between a Polish municipal authority and a Dutch resident concerning compensation for the use of property in Poland without a legal title. The CJEU clarifies which EU regulation applies in this situation and interprets the relevant provisions for determining which court has jurisdiction.

The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by a Polish court. First, it addresses the temporal scope of Regulation No. 1215/2012, clarifying whether the “institution of legal proceedings” refers to the initial action by the claimant or a subsequent statement of opposition by the defendant. Second, it interprets key provisions of Regulation No. 44/2001 (and, by extension, the equivalent provisions of Regulation No. 1215/2012) to determine if a person domiciled in one Member State can be sued in another for the non-contractual use of immovable property. The court examines the applicability of articles related to rights in rem, tort, and multiple defendants.

The most important provisions clarified are:
1. **Article 66(1) of Regulation No. 1215/2012**: The relevant date for determining which regulation applies (Regulation 1215/2012 or Regulation 44/2001) is the date the initial action was brought by the claimant, not the date of a later statement of opposition by the defendant.
2. **Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 44/2001**: A claim for compensation for the non-contractual use of property falls under “matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict,” potentially giving jurisdiction to the courts where the harmful event occurred.
3. **Article 6(1) of Regulation No. 44/2001**: This article regarding multiple defendants applies only if the claims are so closely connected that a joint hearing is necessary to avoid irreconcilable judgments.
4. **Article 22(1) of Regulation No. 44/2001**: Actions for compensation for non-contractual use of property do not fall under “rights in rem in immovable property” or “tenancies of immovable property,” meaning exclusive jurisdiction does not automatically lie with the courts of the Member State where the property is located.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2025.Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU v Embutidos Monells, SA.Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 9(1) – Action for invalidity – Bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the later trade mark when filing the application for registration of that mark – Absolute ground for invalidity – Limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Not enforceable against the proprietor of the earlier mark.Case C-322/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU trade mark law, specifically regarding the possibility of invalidating a trade mark due to bad faith, even after a period of acquiescence. The case revolves around a dispute between two Spanish companies, Sánchez Romero Carvajal and Embutidos Monells, over similar trade marks for food products. The Spanish court seeks clarification on whether Sánchez Romero Carvajal can still challenge Monells’ trade marks based on bad faith, despite having initially set a deadline for legal action that has passed.

The judgment clarifies the interplay between the “limitation in consequence of acquiescence” principle and the “bad faith” ground for invalidity in trade mark law. It focuses on Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC, which states that if the owner of an earlier trade mark has knowingly tolerated the use of a later trade mark for five years, they lose the right to challenge it, unless the later trade mark was registered in bad faith. The Court interprets this to mean that if bad faith is established, the acquiescence period does not prevent an invalidity action. The Court also highlights that bad faith undermines fair competition and that the party alleging bad faith must prove it.

The key takeaway from this judgment is that **bad faith in registering a trade mark overrides the limitation in consequence of acquiescence**. Even if the owner of an earlier mark has been aware of the use of a later mark for more than five years, they can still bring an action for invalidity if they can prove that the later mark was registered in bad faith. The judgment also clarifies that setting a deadline for legal action in a warning letter does not prevent the earlier trade mark owner from later claiming bad faith, even if they were aware of the bad faith when sending the letter.