Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184
This regulation updates the EU’s list of high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes. Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, and Venezuela are added to the list, while Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates are removed. EU financial institutions must apply enhanced due diligence measures when dealing with entities from the listed countries.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1325
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2378, updating standard forms for the automatic exchange of information, particularly to accommodate the new global minimum level of taxation rules. Annex XVII provides the detailed computerised format (XML schema) for this exchange, which multinational enterprises and large domestic groups must follow for standardised reporting across Member States.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1379
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 concerning health rules for animal by-products. Key changes include digitalizing record-keeping, updating commercial document models, and providing health certificates for moving animal by-products from restricted zones, as well as transporting unprocessed manure. Notably, it exempts consignments of unprocessed manure from the obligation to keep commercial documents and animal health certificates when obtained through the TRACES system.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1410
This regulation sets out the format and technical specifications for labels and transparency notices in political advertisements, as per Regulation (EU) 2024/900. Annex II provides templates for visual and audio labels and transparency notices, ensuring clear and standardized presentation of information about the advertisement’s backers. Annex III details technical specifications for online notices, focusing on accessibility and machine-readability.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1400
This regulation authorises peppermint, clary sage, and sage essential oils as sensory feed additives for all animal species. It specifies maximum content levels in complete feed and mandates labelling requirements for safe use. The additives must be incorporated into feed as a premixture, with feed business operators required to implement operational procedures and protective measures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1402
This regulation authorises tea tree essential oil as a sensory feed additive for all animal species, specifying maximum content levels in feed. It addresses safety concerns related to methyleugenol, mandating protective measures for users. The additive cannot be used in drinking water. Mixtures with other botanical additives are permitted if methyleugenol levels remain within specified limits.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1403
This regulation authorises Spanish sage and lavender essential oils as sensory feed additives for all animal species. It sets maximum content levels in feed, varying by species, and specifies labelling requirements for safe handling. The additives must be incorporated as a premixture, and feed business operators must establish protective measures against potential health risks.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1392
This regulation authorises 3-phytase produced with Komagataella phaffii CECT 13171 as a feed additive for poultry and pigs. It specifies the animal species, minimum and maximum content, and requires feed business operators to establish operational procedures to address potential risks. Storage conditions and stability to heat treatment must be indicated in the directions for use.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1448
This regulation initiates an investigation into potential circumvention of anti-dumping measures on threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron from China and Thailand. The investigation focuses on imports of unthreaded fittings from China and mandates the registration of these imports, which could lead to retroactive anti-dumping duties if circumvention is confirmed. Strict deadlines for participation are set for interested parties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1395
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/997 concerning the feed additive L-lysine base, liquid. It authorises a new production strain, Corynebacterium glutamicum NRRL B-68248, but prohibits its use in drinking water. The regulation also corrects the description of L-lysine base as a preparation and updates references to analytical methods.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1391
This regulation corrects an error in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1186, adjusting the maximum permitted concentration of methyleugenol in cinnamon bark essential oil from ≤ 0.04% to ≤ 0.004%. Transitional measures allow feed business operators time to adapt to the new concentration limit.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1386
This regulation authorises endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044 as a zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening, laying hens, and minor poultry species. It specifies dosage requirements for different animal categories and mandates that feed business operators establish procedures to address potential risks, as well as to use personal protective equipment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1390
This regulation authorises a preparation of bacteriophages as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry. It aims to reduce environmental contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. The additive is designed to reduce environmental contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis in poultry. The authorisation is granted to Proteon Pharmaceuticals S.A. and is subject to specific conditions of use, including post-market monitoring and safety measures for users. The additive can only be used in water for drinking for poultry.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1377
This regulation amends and corrects Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, adjusting requirements for animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Changes include additional risk mitigation for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), inclusion of processed beeswax in the list of products not subject to animal health conditions for import and transit, the introduction of two new alternative processing methods for biodiesel production, updated import conditions for processed animal protein derived from insects, and the introduction of animal health requirements for imports of frass.
General Court Judgments Regarding Trademarks “Iceland”
The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision to invalidate Iceland Foods Ltd’s “Iceland” trademark, finding it descriptive. The court emphasized that geographical names must remain available for use by all businesses and that the public would perceive “Iceland” as indicating the origin of the goods and services. In similar case regarding the “ICELAND” trademark, the court emphasizes that it is in the public interest that geographical names remain available for use by undertakings to indicate the origin of their goods or services.
General Court Judgment Regarding Lisa Ballmann v. EDPB
The General Court ruled that Lisa Ballmann, had right to access documents related to a binding decision concerning Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Facebook). The court emphasis that the right of access to one’s file is not strictly limited to situations where the person is adversely affected by a decision.
General Court Judgment Regarding Victor Petrov v. Council
The General Court rejected the action of Victor Petrov, sanctionned for actions destabilizing Moldova, challenged the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the lists of individuals subject to these sanctions, because Council had a proper legal basis for imposing the sanctions and that the measures were proportionate and did not violate the principle of legal certainty.
General Court Judgment Regarding Noster Finance SL v. EUIPO
The General Court dismissed Noster Finance’s appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision to partially revoke the EU trademark “finect” due to lack of genuine use. The EUIPO must provide reasoning to decisions and EU trademarks can be revokes for lack of genuine use.
General Court Judgment Regarding Trademark wavy rectangle.
The General Court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to refuse the registration of a figurative mark consisting of a wavy rectangle finding that the wavy rectangle is too simple and lacks the characteristics needed to be perceived as a trade mark.
General Court Judgment Regarding ET v. EIB
The General Court ruled against ET, an employee of the European Investment Bank (EIB), upholding the EIB’s decision to recover unduly paid individual awards. The court emphasized that the it is sufficient for the applicant to have doubts about the validity of the payments in question for him to be obliged to contact the administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks.
General Court Judgment Regarding heirs of Jean-Marie Le Pen v. European Parliament
The General Court upheld the European Parliament’s decision to recover funds unduly paid to Mr. Le Pen during his time as a Member of the European Parliament. The Court reaffirms the importance of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in EU law.
General Court Judgment Regarding Rimorchiatori Riuniti Panfido & C. Srl v. CINEA
The General Court ruled against Rimorchiatori Riuniti Panfido & C. Srl concerning a grant agreement related to the “Poseidon Med II” project, finding that the applicant had not fully completed Activity 15 as required by the grant agreement and that CINEA was justified in reducing the grant amount.
General Court Judgment Regarding Planistat Europe and Hervé-Patrick Charlot v. European Commission
The General Court rejects the claims of Planistat Europe and Hervé-Patrick Charlot that the Commission incurred non-contractual liability due to the actions of OLAF and the Commission related to an investigation into financial irregularities within Eurostat, finding that the necessary conditions for establishing the Union’s liability were not met and that OLAF must have more than a mere suspicion but does not need conclusive proof before transmitting information to national authorities.
General Court Judgment Regarding Abacus Research AG and EUIPO
The General Court dismissed the appeal by Abacus Research AG against a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had rejected the registration of the word mark “Aba” due to a risk of confusion with an earlier figurative EU trademark “ABA” owned by the American Bar Association confirming that the courts can reject the registration of EU trademarks due to risks of confusion.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184 of 10 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the FATF, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates from that list
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184 updates the list of high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes. The regulation identifies countries that pose significant threats to the EU’s financial system due to these deficiencies. The aim is to protect the integrity and proper functioning of the EU’s financial system and internal market.
The regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 by adding Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries. These countries have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Conversely, Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates are removed from the list because they have made significant progress in improving their AML/CFT regimes and are no longer subject to increased monitoring by the FATF. The updated list is provided in the Annex to the regulation, replacing the previous table in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675.
The most important provision is the updated list of high-risk third countries in the Annex. Financial institutions and other obliged entities within the EU must apply enhanced due diligence measures when dealing with individuals or entities from these listed countries. This regulation ensures that the EU’s AML/CFT framework remains aligned with international standards and the latest assessments by the FATF.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1325 of 7 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2378 as regards the standard forms and computerised formats to be used for the mandatory automatic exchange of information under Council Directive 2011/16/EU as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2025/872
This is a description of the **Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1325**.
**Essence of the Act:**
The regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2378 to update the standard forms and computerised formats used for the automatic exchange of information under Council Directive 2011/16/EU, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2025/872. These changes are necessary to accommodate the mandatory automatic exchange of information reported by multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups, as required by Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523, which ensures a global minimum level of taxation. The regulation ensures that the practical arrangements for communicating information are clearly defined and standardised.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.
* **Article 1** amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2378 by adding a new paragraph to Article 2, specifying that the computerised format for the automatic exchange of information under Article 8ae(5) of Directive 2011/16/EU must comply with Annex XVII of the regulation. It also adds Annex XVII to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2378.
* **Article 2** states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
* **Annex XVII** provides the detailed computerised format (XML schema) to be used for the mandatory automatic exchange of information. This includes specifications for message types, identifiers, filing information, and various financial and tax-related data.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provision is Annex XVII, which provides the technical specifications for the computerised format to be used for the automatic exchange of information related to the global minimum level of taxation. This annex is crucial for multinational enterprises and large domestic groups that need to comply with the reporting requirements under Directive 2011/16/EU as amended. It includes detailed schemas and enumerations for various data elements, ensuring standardised reporting across all Member States.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1379 of 15 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards the digitalisation of record keeping, the models for the commercial document and for health certificates for movement of animal by-products from restricted zones and for transport of unprocessed manure
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1379 amends Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 regarding health rules for animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption. The key changes involve the digitalization of record keeping, updates to the models for the commercial document, and health certificates for moving animal by-products from restricted zones, as well as for transporting unprocessed manure.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to the regulation. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex details the specific amendments to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, including replacing point 5 and 7 in Chapter III of Annex VIII, and replacing point 3 in Section 1 of Chapter I of Annex XI.
The most important provisions of this act include the exemption from the obligation to keep commercial documents and animal health certificates for consignments of unprocessed manure when these documents are obtained through the TRACES system. Furthermore, the updated model health certificate for movements of animal by-products from restricted zones and the inclusion of prohibitions related to urine hunting lures derived from cervids in the commercial document are also significant.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1410 of 9 July 2025 on the format, template and technical specifications of the labels and transparency notices of political advertisements in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1410 of 9 July 2025, which sets out the rules for the format, template, and technical specifications of labels and transparency notices for political advertisements, as required by Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation (EU) 2024/900. The regulation aims to ensure that political advertising is clearly identified and that citizens have easy access to information about who is behind the advertisement, who paid for it, and whether targeting techniques were used. It provides detailed guidelines for both offline and online political advertising, including specific requirements for different media formats like television, radio, print, and digital platforms. The goal is to make political advertising more transparent and accessible to all citizens, including those with disabilities.
The regulation consists of two articles and three annexes. Article 1 specifies that labels and transparency notices must comply with Annexes I and II, while transparency notices must also comply with Annex III. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 10 October 2025.
* **Annex I** outlines the format of labels and transparency notices, providing general requirements applicable to all forms of political advertisements, as well as specific requirements for television, radio, printed media, and digital media.
* **Annex II** provides templates for visual and audio labels, as well as for transparency notices, including the specific information that must be included in each.
* **Annex III** details the technical specifications for transparency notices, including requirements for machine-readable formats, accessibility, font sizes, contrast ratios, and flexible layouts.
The most important provisions for practical use are the templates in Annex II, which provide the exact wording and layout for the labels and transparency notices. These templates ensure that all necessary information is presented in a clear and standardized way. Additionally, the technical specifications in Annex III are crucial for online political advertising, as they ensure that transparency notices are accessible, user-friendly, and machine-readable, facilitating compliance with the broader transparency objectives of Regulation (EU) 2024/900.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1400 of 16 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of peppermint essential oil from Mentha × piperita L., clary sage essential oil from Salvia sclarea L. and sage essential oil from Salvia officinalis L. as feed additives for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1400 authorises the use of peppermint essential oil from Mentha × piperita L., clary sage essential oil from Salvia sclarea L., and sage essential oil from Salvia officinalis L. as sensory feed additives (flavouring compounds) for all animal species. It specifies conditions of use, including maximum content levels in complete feed, and labelling requirements to ensure safe and effective application. The regulation follows a re-evaluation process as per Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, taking into account the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) safety assessments.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 outlines the authorisation of the specified substances as feed additives under the category of ‘sensory additives’ and the functional group of ‘flavouring compounds,’ subject to the conditions detailed in the annex. Article 2 establishes transitional measures, allowing for the continued use and marketing of products produced and labelled before specific dates, in accordance with previous regulations, until existing stocks are exhausted. Article 3 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details specific provisions for each authorised additive, including composition, identification, maximum content, and other requirements.
Key provisions include the maximum content levels for each essential oil, which vary depending on the animal species, and specific labelling requirements to ensure that users are aware of the recommended maximum content and any potential risks. The regulation mandates that the additives be incorporated into feed in the form of a premixture and requires feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks. Furthermore, it specifies that personal protective equipment should be used when risks cannot be eliminated through procedures and measures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1402 of 16 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of tea tree essential oil from Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel as a feed additive for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1402 authorises the use of tea tree essential oil from *Melaleuca alternifolia* as a sensory feed additive for all animal species, specifically as a flavouring compound. The regulation specifies conditions of use, including maximum content levels in complete feed, and addresses safety concerns related to methyleugenol content and potential risks to users handling the additive. It also establishes transitional measures for products already on the market to adapt to the new requirements.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex.
* **Article 1** provides the authorisation for tea tree essential oil as a feed additive under the category of sensory additives and the functional group of flavouring compounds, subject to the conditions outlined in the annex.
* **Article 2** outlines transitional measures, allowing the continued marketing and use of tea tree essential oil and related products produced and labelled before specified dates, in accordance with previous regulations, until existing stocks are exhausted.
* **Article 3** states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The Annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, its composition, analytical method, the animal species or category for which it is intended, maximum age, minimum and maximum content levels, other provisions, and the end date of the authorisation period.
Key provisions include the maximum content of the additive in complete feed, specific requirements for its use in premixtures, and protective measures for users to minimise exposure to methyleugenol. The regulation does not allow the use of tea tree essential oil in drinking water for animals. A mixture of tea tree essential oil with other botanical additives is permitted provided that the amounts of methyleugenol in feed materials and compound feed is lower than the one resulting from the use of a single additive at the maximum or recommended content for the species or animal category.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1403 of 16 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of Spanish sage essential oil from Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams and lavender essential oil from Lavandula angustifolia Mill. as feed additives for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1403 authorises the use of Spanish sage essential oil from Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia and lavender essential oil from Lavandula angustifolia as sensory feed additives (flavouring compounds) for all animal species. It establishes conditions for their use, including maximum content levels in complete feed, and labelling requirements to ensure safe handling and application. The regulation follows a re-evaluation of these additives, previously authorised under Directive 70/524/EEC, and takes into account the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) opinions on their safety and efficacy.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the substances specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category ‘sensory additives’ and to the functional group ‘flavouring compounds’, are authorised as additives in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex. Article 2 outlines transitional measures, allowing the continued use of products produced and labelled under previous regulations for a limited time. Article 3 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, composition, description, analytical method, animal species, maximum content, other provisions, and end of the authorisation period. Compared to the previous Directive 70/524/EEC, this regulation provides more specific conditions of use, including maximum content levels and labelling requirements, based on EFSA’s safety assessment.
Key provisions include the maximum content levels for each essential oil in complete animal feed, which vary depending on the animal species. For Spanish sage essential oil, a uniform maximum content of 14 mg/kg is set for all animal species. For lavender essential oil, the maximum content varies significantly depending on the animal species, ranging from 7 mg/kg for cats and other species to 39 mg/kg for calves and salmonids. The regulation mandates that the additives be incorporated into feed as a premixture and specifies labelling requirements, including recommended maximum content and safety information. It also requires feed business operators to establish operational procedures and protective measures to mitigate potential health risks to users, particularly concerning skin, eye, and respiratory irritation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1392 of 15 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of 3-phytase produced with Komagataella phaffii CECT 13171 as a feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying or for breeding, minor poultry species for breeding, laying hens and pigs for fattening of all Suidae species (holder of authorisation: Fertinagro Biotech S.L.)
This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1392 that authorises the use of a specific feed additive, 3-phytase produced with Komagataella phaffii CECT 13171, for poultry and pigs. The additive is intended to enhance digestibility in these animals. The regulation specifies the conditions under which this additive can be used in animal nutrition.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the preparation specified in the annex is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that annex. Article 2 indicates when the regulation comes into force. The annex specifies details such as the identification number of the feed additive, the name of the authorisation holder (Fertinagro Biotech S.L.), the composition and characteristics of the additive, the target animal species, the minimum and maximum content of the additive in feed, other provisions regarding its use, and the end date of the authorisation period.
The most important provisions for users include the permitted animal species (poultry for fattening, reared for laying or breeding, minor poultry species for breeding, laying hens and pigs for fattening of all Suidae species), the specified minimum and maximum content of the additive (500 FTU/kg for most poultry and pigs, 1000 FTU/kg for laying hens), and the requirement for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks resulting from the use of the additive and premixtures. The regulation also mandates the indication of storage conditions and stability to heat treatment in the directions for use.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1448 of 15 July 2025 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1259 on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand by imports of unthreaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the People’s Republic of China and making such imports subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1448 initiates an investigation into the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed on threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand. The investigation will focus on imports of unthreaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron originating in the People’s Republic of China. The regulation also mandates the registration of these imports, which could lead to the imposition of anti-dumping duties if circumvention is confirmed.
The regulation is structured as follows: It begins with recitals that detail the request for investigation, the products involved, the existing measures, and the grounds for initiating the investigation. It outlines the procedure for the investigation, including instructions for submitting information, holding hearings, and requesting exemptions. It also specifies the time limits for interested parties to participate, addresses non-cooperation, and provides a schedule for the investigation. The regulation also includes sections on the processing of personal data and the role of the Hearing Officer. Finally, it concludes with two articles that formally initiate the investigation and mandate the registration of imports.
The most important provisions for its use are:
– **Article 1**: Formally initiates the investigation to determine if circumvention is occurring.
– **Article 2**: Mandates the registration of imports of unthreaded tube or pipe cast fittings, which is a critical step towards potentially imposing anti-dumping duties retroactively.
– **Article 3**: Sets strict deadlines for interested parties to make themselves known, submit information, and request hearings, which are essential for participation in the investigation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1395 of 15 July 2025 correcting and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/997 as regards the terms of the authorisation of L-lysine base, liquid, as a feed additive for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1395 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/997, focusing on the feed additive L-lysine base, liquid, used for all animal species. The key change involves authorizing a new production strain, Corynebacterium glutamicum NRRL B-68248, for L-lysine base, liquid. This new strain will not be authorized for use in drinking water, unlike the previously authorized strains. The regulation also corrects the description of L-lysine base, liquid, to explicitly state that it is a preparation, and updates references to analytical methods for quantifying L-lysine in feed.
The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/997 with a new annex that includes updated information on L-lysine base, liquid, including the addition of the new production strain. Article 2 outlines transitional measures for feed additives and premixtures produced and labeled under the old rules, allowing them to be used until stocks are exhausted. Article 3 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides detailed information on the composition, chemical formula, description, and analytical methods for L-lysine base, liquid, L-lysine monohydrochloride, and L-lysine sulphate.
The most important provisions of this act are related to the introduction of a new identification number (3c320ii) for L-lysine base, liquid, produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum NRRL B-68248, as it is not authorized for use in drinking water. Additionally, the correction of the description of L-lysine base, liquid, as a preparation is significant for feed business operators. The transitional measures outlined in Article 2 are also important, as they allow for the continued use of existing stocks produced under the previous regulations, providing operators with time to adapt to the new requirements.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1391 of 15 July 2025 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1186 as regards the methyleugenol concentration in cinnamon bark essential oil
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1391 addresses an error in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1186, which authorized cinnamon bark essential oil as a feed additive for certain animal species. The original regulation incorrectly stated the maximum permitted concentration of methyleugenol in cinnamon bark essential oil. This new regulation corrects that error, setting the correct limit for methyleugenol concentration.
The regulation consists of three articles. Article 1 amends the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1186, specifically correcting the maximum permitted concentration of methyleugenol in cinnamon bark essential oil from ≤ 0,04 % to ≤ 0,004 %. Article 2 outlines transitional measures, allowing feed business operators a period to adapt to the new concentration limit. It allows products produced and labelled before 5 September 2025, according to the old rules, to be placed on the market and used until 5 February 2026. Article 3 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The most important provision is the correction of the methyleugenol concentration limit in cinnamon bark essential oil to ≤ 0,004 %. This change is crucial for feed business operators, as they must ensure their products comply with the corrected limit. The transitional measures in Article 2 provide a grace period for businesses to adapt to this new requirement, which is also an important element to consider.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1386 of 15 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044 as a feed additive for pigs for fattening, laying hens and minor poultry species (holder of authorisation: AB Enzymes Finland Oy)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1386 authorises the use of a specific feed additive, endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044, for pigs for fattening, laying hens, and minor poultry species. The additive is classified as a zootechnical additive, specifically a digestibility enhancer. The regulation establishes the conditions for its use, including the required minimum and maximum content in animal feed.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 sanctions the use of the additive under the conditions listed in the annex. Article 2 states the entry into force of the regulation. The Annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, the name of the authorisation holder (AB Enzymes Finland Oy), details about the additive’s composition, including the producing organism (Trichoderma reesei CBS 114044) and activity (minimum 160,000 BXU/g in both solid and liquid forms), and the analytical methods for quantification. It also defines the target animal species (pigs for fattening, laying hens, and minor poultry species), the minimum and maximum content of the additive in the feed (varying based on the animal species), other provisions related to usage instructions and safety measures, and the end date of the authorisation period (August 5, 2035).
The most important provisions for users include the specific dosage requirements for different animal categories (20,000 BXU/kg for pigs for fattening, 12,000 BXU/kg for laying hens and minor poultry species for laying, and 8,000 BXU/kg for other minor poultry species). Furthermore, the regulation mandates that feed business operators establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks and use personal protective equipment to prevent adverse health effects.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1390 of 15 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of the bacteriophages PCM F/00069, PCM F/00070, PCM F/00071 and PCM F/00097 as a feed additive for poultry (holder of authorisation: Proteon Pharmaceuticals S.A.)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1390 authorises the use of a specific preparation of bacteriophages as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry. The additive, containing bacteriophages PCM F/00069, PCM F/00070, PCM F/00071, and PCM F/00097, is designed to reduce environmental contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis in poultry. The authorisation is granted to Proteon Pharmaceuticals S.A. and is subject to specific conditions of use, including post-market monitoring and safety measures for users.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states the authorisation of the additive, subject to the conditions laid down in the annex. Article 2 defines the entry into force of the regulation. The annex specifies details such as the identification number of the additive, the name of the authorisation holder, the composition and analytical method, the target animal species, and the conditions of use. It also includes requirements for post-market monitoring and safety measures for users of the additive. There are no previous versions mentioned, so there are no changes to describe.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are in the Annex.
1. The additive can only be used in water for drinking for poultry.
2. The additive shall be used ensuring a minimum dose of: 2 × 106 PFU/bird/day.
3. A post-market monitoring programme addressing in particular the potential selection and spread of resistant variants of Salmonella has to be executed by the holder of authorisation.
4. Feed business operators shall establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks resulting from the use of the additive. Where those risks cannot be eliminated by such procedures and measures, the additive shall be used with personal breathing and skin protective equipment.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1377 of 15 July 2025 amending and correcting Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards certain requirements for the placing on the market and imports of animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption
This is an analysis of Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1377, which amends and corrects Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. The regulation addresses specific requirements for placing animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption on the market, as well as their import.
The amending regulation is structured around changes to several articles and annexes of the original Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. These changes include: amendments to Article 13 regarding feeding Category 2 material to fur animals, amendments to Article 25 regarding import rules for urine hunting lures and processed beeswax, amendments to Annex IV regarding alternative processing methods for biodiesel and renewable fuels, amendments to Annex V regarding composting and biogas transformation of frass, amendments to Annex XIV regarding import conditions for processed animal protein from insects and photogelatine, and amendments to Annex XV regarding health certificates for processed animal protein and manure.
The most important provisions of this act are those concerning the additional risk mitigation measures related to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), specifically the new conditions for feeding Category 2 material from birds to animals, requiring a risk assessment by the competent authority. Also important are the inclusion of processed beeswax in the list of products not subject to animal health conditions for import and transit, and the introduction of two new alternative processing methods for biodiesel production. Finally, the updated import conditions for processed animal protein derived from insects and the introduction of animal health requirements for imports of frass are significant.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2025.Iceland Foods Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Iceland – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Case T-106/23.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for the invalidity of the EU figurative mark “Iceland” owned by Iceland Foods Ltd. The court upholds the decision of the EUIPO’s Grand Board of Appeal, finding the mark invalid due to its descriptive character.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses an action brought by Iceland Foods Ltd against a decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The core issue is whether the EU figurative mark “Iceland” is invalid under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) because it is descriptive.
* **Background:** Icelandic Trademark Holding ehf filed for a declaration of invalidity against Iceland Foods Ltd’s EU trade mark “Iceland” for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, and 35. The Cancellation Division upheld the application, and the Grand Board of Appeal dismissed Iceland Foods Ltd’s appeal.
* **Grounds for Invalidity:** The initial grounds were based on Article 7(1)(b), (c), and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (descriptive character, lack of distinctive character, and deceptiveness). Icelandic Trademark Holding later added a ground based on Article 7(1)(f) (conflict with a geographical indication), which was deemed inadmissible due to late submission.
* **Grand Board of Appeal’s Decision:** The Board found the mark descriptive under Article 7(1)(c), as the relevant public (English-speaking general public of the EU) would perceive it as indicating that the goods and services originate from Iceland. The figurative elements were considered merely decorative and did not alter this perception. The Board also suggested the mark lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b).
* **General Court’s Judgment:** The General Court dismisses Iceland Foods Ltd’s action, agreeing with the Grand Board of Appeal that the mark is descriptive. The Court emphasizes that it is in the public interest that geographical names remain available for use, especially when they may indicate the quality or other characteristics of goods. The Court finds that “Iceland” is recognized as a country capable of producing a wide range of goods and services, and the relevant public would likely associate the mark with the geographical origin of the goods and services in question.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Descriptive Character:** The key takeaway is the court’s emphasis on the descriptive nature of geographical names. A geographical name cannot be registered as a trade mark if it designates a place associated with the goods/services in question or if it’s reasonable to assume such an association may be established in the future.
* **Relevant Public’s Perception:** The perception of the relevant public (in this case, the English-speaking general public of the EU) is crucial in determining whether a mark is descriptive.
* **Goods and Services:** The court analyzes the goods (foodstuffs in Classes 29 and 30) and services (retail services in Class 35) separately, finding that the mark “Iceland” is descriptive for both.
* **Figurative Elements:** The presence of figurative elements in a mark does not automatically make it non-descriptive. If the figurative elements are merely decorative and do not alter the descriptive message conveyed by the word element, the mark may still be considered descriptive.
* **Article 12(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 14(b) of Regulation 2017/1001):** This article allows third parties to use indications of geographical origin descriptively, provided they do so in accordance with honest practices. This provision does not guarantee the protection of the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(c) of that regulation.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2025.Iceland Foods Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark ICELAND – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Case T-105/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the invalidity of the EU word mark “ICELAND,” owned by Iceland Foods Ltd, a UK-based company. The court supports the decision of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) Grand Board of Appeal, which had declared the mark invalid due to its descriptive character. The court finds that the word “ICELAND” can serve to designate the geographical origin of goods and services, thus preventing it from functioning as a distinctive trademark for Iceland Foods Ltd.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial application for invalidity by Íslandsstofa (Promote Iceland), Iceland, and SA – Business Iceland. It then details the forms of order sought by the involved parties: Iceland Foods Ltd (applicant), EUIPO (defendant), Íslandsstofa, Iceland, and SA – Business Iceland (interveners), and the International Trademark Association (INTA) (intervener). The court then proceeds to analyze the legal arguments presented by the applicant, focusing on two main pleas: infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (descriptive character) and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation (lack of distinctive character). The court thoroughly examines the descriptive character of the mark in relation to various classes of goods and services, including food products, household appliances, paper goods, and retail services. Finally, the court dismisses the action and orders Iceland Foods Ltd to pay the costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), which prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist exclusively of signs or indications that may serve to designate the geographical origin of goods or services. The court emphasizes that it is in the public interest that geographical names remain available for use by undertakings to indicate the origin of their goods or services. The judgment also highlights the importance of assessing the perception of the relevant public and the existence of a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services in question.
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 July 2025.Lisa Ballmann v European Data Protection Board.Protection of personal data – Complaint against the controller of personal data of users of an online social network in the European Union – Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Binding decision of the European Data Protection Board – Complainant’s request for access to the file prepared for the purposes of the binding decision – Refusal to grant access – Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Admissibility – Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Case T-183/23.
This judgment concerns a case brought by Lisa Ballmann against the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) regarding access to documents related to a binding decision concerning Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Facebook). Ms. Ballmann sought access to the file prepared by the EDPB for Binding Decision 3/2022, which related to a complaint she had originally lodged against Facebook Ireland Ltd. The EDPB refused her request, leading to this action for annulment.
The structure of the judgment involves an assessment of the admissibility of the action, followed by an examination of the substance of the claim. The court considers whether the EDPB’s decision rejecting Ms. Ballmann’s request for access to the file under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is valid. The court analyzes whether the right of access to the file is conditional on the applicant being adversely affected by the decision, or whether it is an autonomous right based on the file concerning the applicant.
The most important provision is the court’s interpretation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court concludes that the right of access to one’s file is not strictly limited to situations where the person is adversely affected by a decision. Instead, it is an autonomous right linked to the broader right to good administration, implying that individuals have a right to access documents that concern them, subject to legitimate interests of confidentiality and professional secrecy. The court found that the EDPB file did concern Ms. Ballmann, as it originated from her complaint against Meta.
Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Victor Petrov contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises en raison des actions déstabilisant la Moldavie – Gel des fonds – Restriction en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques ou faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Atteinte au processus politique démocratique et déstabilisation de l’ordre constitutionnel – Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous a), i), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous a), i), de la décision (PESC) 2023/891 – Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous a), i), du règlement (UE) 2023/888 – Association à des personnes inscrites sur les listes – Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous b), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la décision 2023/891 – Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous b), du règlement 2023/888 – Obligation de motivation – Exception d’illégalité – Erreur d’appréciation – Liberté d’entreprise – Droit de propriété – Liberté d’association – Liberté d’expression – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-344/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of July 16, 2025, in Case T-344/24, Victor Petrov v. Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed on individuals for actions destabilizing Moldova. The applicant, Victor Petrov, challenged the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the lists of individuals subject to these sanctions. He sought the annulment of the Council’s decision and compensation for the moral prejudice he allegedly suffered.
The judgment addresses the legality of maintaining Victor Petrov’s name on the EU sanctions list related to actions destabilizing Moldova. Petrov, a Moldovan politician, was sanctioned for allegedly undermining the democratic process and constitutional order in Moldova, and for being associated with a person already on the sanctions list, Ilan Shor. The General Court dismissed Petrov’s application for annulment of the sanctions and for damages.
The court examines several aspects of the case, including the justification for the sanctions, the evidence presented by the Council, and the alleged violation of Petrov’s fundamental rights. The structure of the judgment includes:
1. Background of the dispute: This section outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures concerning actions destabilizing Moldova, the relevant Council decisions and regulations, and the reasons for including Petrov on the sanctions list.
2. Claims of the parties: This section summarizes the arguments made by Petrov and the Council. Petrov sought the annulment of the sanctions and compensation, while the Council defended its decision and requested that the action be dismissed.
3. Legal analysis: This is the core of the judgment, where the court assesses the merits of Petrov’s claims. It is divided into sections addressing the claims for annulment and the claims for damages.
* Claims for annulment: The court examines several grounds for annulment raised by Petrov, including:
* Violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons: The court rejects Petrov’s claim that the Council failed to provide sufficient reasons for maintaining his name on the sanctions list.
* Illegality of the underlying Council decision and regulation: The court finds that the Council had a proper legal basis for imposing the sanctions and that the measures were proportionate and did not violate the principle of legal certainty.
* Errors of assessment: The court examines whether the Council made errors in its assessment of the facts and evidence. It finds that the Council provided sufficient evidence to justify the sanctions, although some of the evidence related to Petrov’s connection to a specific website was not sufficiently substantiated.
* Violation of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights: The court concludes that the sanctions were proportionate and did not unduly infringe on Petrov’s fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, right to property and freedom to conduct a business.
* Claims for damages: The court dismisses Petrov’s claim for compensation, finding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged damage to his reputation.
4. Decision on costs: The court orders Petrov to pay the costs of the proceedings, as he lost the case.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* The criteria for imposing sanctions: The judgment clarifies the criteria used by the Council for imposing sanctions on individuals for actions destabilizing Moldova, including undermining the democratic process and constitutional order.
* The standard of evidence: The judgment discusses the standard of evidence required to justify the imposition of sanctions, including the use of publicly available information and the assessment of the credibility of sources.
* The protection of fundamental rights: The judgment emphasizes that the imposition of sanctions must respect fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, and must be proportionate to the objectives pursued.
Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Noster Finance SL contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative finect – Déclaration de déchéance partielle – Absence d’usage sérieux de la marque – Article 58, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Obligation de motivation – Article 94, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001 – Article 62, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001.#Affaire T-263/24.
This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case (T-263/24) between Noster Finance SL and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Wewi Mobile, SL as an intervening party. The case concerns the partial revocation of the EU trademark “finect” due to lack of genuine use. The General Court dismisses Noster Finance’s appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision to partially revoke the trademark.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Details the initial trademark application, the revocation request by Wewi Mobile, SL, the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, and the subsequent appeals to the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Noster Finance SL (the applicant), the EUIPO, and Wewi Mobile, SL (the intervener).
* **Legal Analysis:** This section is divided into three parts, addressing the pleas raised by Noster Finance SL:
* Violation of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (failure to state reasons). The Court rejects this plea, finding that the Board of Appeal did provide sufficient reasoning.
* Violation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of genuine use of the trademark). The Court upholds the Board of Appeal’s assessment that genuine use was not demonstrated for all the contested services in Classes 36, 38, and 42.
* Violation of Article 62(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (date from which revocation takes effect). The Court finds that the Board of Appeal was justified in setting the date of revocation earlier than the date of the revocation application.
* **Costs:** Determines that Noster Finance SL must bear its own costs and those of Wewi Mobile, SL, while the EUIPO will bear its own costs.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001**: requires that the decisions of the EUIPO must be reasoned.
* **Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001**: defines the conditions under which a trademark can be revoked for lack of genuine use.
* **Article 62(1) of Regulation 2017/1001**: concerns the date from which the revocation of a trademark takes effect.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2025.Rigo Trading SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing a wavy rectangle – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-215/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for an EU trade mark. The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to refuse the registration of a figurative mark consisting of a wavy rectangle. The court agrees with EUIPO that the mark lacks distinctive character and would not be perceived by the relevant public as an indicator of the commercial origin of goods.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the application for the international registration designating the EU, the goods and services it covers (Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28), the Examiner’s initial refusal, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal.
* **Forms of order sought:** It presents the applicant’s request to annul the EUIPO decision and EUIPO’s request to dismiss the action.
* **Law:** It details the applicant’s pleas, which are based on infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctive character) and infringement of fundamental rights under the EU Charter.
* **Analysis:** The Court addresses the definition of the relevant public, agreeing with the Board of Appeal that it includes both the general public and professional public with varying levels of attention. It then focuses on the distinctiveness of the mark, concluding that the wavy rectangle is too simple and lacks the characteristics needed to be perceived as a trade mark. The court also dismisses the applicant’s arguments regarding the mark’s similarity to a gummy bear shape and its reliance on previous EUIPO decisions. The court also rejects the applicant’s arguments regarding the perception of the relevant public of the figurative signs, because the annexes were submitted for the first time before the Court.
* **Costs:** The applicant, having lost the case, is ordered to pay the costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the assessment of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001). The court emphasizes that a mark must enable consumers to identify the commercial origin of goods. Simple geometric shapes are generally not considered inherently distinctive unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use (Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001). The judgment also clarifies that EUIPO is not bound by decisions made in Member States regarding national trade mark registrations.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2025.ET v European Investment Bank.Civil service – EIB staff – Individual award – OLAF investigation – Recovery of sums unduly paid – Article 16.3 of the EIB Staff Rules – Principle of good administration – Principle of transparency – Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.Case T-417/24.
This is the judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between an ET, an employee of the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the EIB itself, concerning the recovery of unduly paid individual awards. The court dismisses the action brought by ET, upholding the EIB’s decision to recover the unduly paid amounts.
The judgment is structured as follows: It starts with the background of the dispute, detailing ET’s employment history, the circumstances surrounding his temporary assignment, and the individual awards he received. It then outlines the investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the subsequent decision by the EIB to recover a portion of those awards. The judgment then presents the forms of order sought by ET, which include the annulment of the EIB’s decision, compensation for damages, and repayment of the deducted sum. The court then proceeds with its legal analysis, dividing it into sections addressing the subject matter of the action, the claim for annulment of the contested decision (based on two pleas: infringement of Article 16.3 of the Staff Rules and breach of duties of good administration, transparency, and care), and finally, the claim for damages and reimbursement.
The most important provisions of the act are related to the interpretation and application of Article 16.3 of the EIB Staff Rules, which allows the EIB to recover amounts unduly paid to a staff member if the recipient was aware of the lack of due reason for the payment or if the overpayment was patently obvious. The court emphasizes that it is sufficient for the applicant to have doubts about the validity of the payments in question for him to be obliged to contact the administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks. The judgment also clarifies the scope and limitations of the duties of good administration, transparency, and care in the context of recovering unduly paid amounts.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Marion Le Pen, en qualité de héritière de Jean-Marie Le Pen e.a. contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Réglementation concernant les frais et indemnités des députés au Parlement – Recouvrement des sommes indûment versées – Confiance légitime – Droit à un procès équitable.#Affaire T-480/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case (T-480/24) brought by the heirs of Jean-Marie Le Pen against the European Parliament. The case concerns the recovery of funds unduly paid to Mr. Le Pen during his time as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). The court dismisses the action brought by Mr. Le Pen’s heirs.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the facts of the case, including Mr. Le Pen’s tenure as an MEP, an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into alleged irregularities, and the Parliament’s decision to recover the unduly paid sums.
* **Claims of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments made by Mr. Le Pen’s heirs (the applicants) and the European Parliament (the defendant). The applicants sought the annulment of the Parliament’s decision to recover the funds, while the Parliament requested the dismissal of the action.
* **Legal Analysis:** The Court addresses two main arguments raised by the applicants:
* Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations: The applicants argued that the Parliament acted inconsistently by inviting them to provide comments while already having made a decision on the recovery of funds. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the Parliament’s actions did not violate these principles.
* Violation of the right to a fair trial: The applicants argued that Mr. Le Pen’s health condition prevented him from effectively participating in the proceedings. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Mr. Le Pen had been given the opportunity to present his views during the OLAF investigation and the administrative procedure initiated by the Parliament.
* **Decision:** The Court dismisses the action in its entirety and orders Mr. Le Pen’s heirs to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act are:
* The Court reaffirms the importance of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in EU law.
* The Court clarifies that the right to a fair trial primarily applies to judicial proceedings before a “tribunal.”
* The Court emphasizes that individuals must be given the opportunity to present their views and evidence in administrative proceedings that may affect their interests.
This judgment confirms the European Parliament’s right to recover funds unduly paid to its members, even after an investigation has been conducted. It also clarifies the scope of the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and the right to a fair trial in the context of such recovery proceedings.
Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Rimorchiatori Riuniti Panfido & C. Srl contre Agence exécutive européenne pour le climat, les infrastructures et l’environnement.#Clause compromissoire – Recours en annulation – Mécanisme pour l’interconnexion en Europe (MIE) – Programme de travail pluriannuel 2014 “Autoroutes de la mer” – Action “Poseidon Med II” – Convention de subvention – Paiement du solde – Remboursement des sommes avancées – Activité non achevée.#Affaire T-1193/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over a grant agreement related to the “Poseidon Med II” project, which aimed to promote the adoption of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel in the Eastern Mediterranean. The case revolves around a claim by Rimorchiatori Riuniti Panfido & C. Srl (the applicant) against the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) concerning the implementation of Activity 15 of the project, which involved the design and construction of an innovative dual-fuel (LNG and diesel) vessel.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. It outlines the background of the dispute, including the grant agreement, the “Poseidon Med II” action, and the specific activity (Activity 15) that the applicant was responsible for.
2. It presents the arguments of the parties, with the applicant claiming that it had properly implemented Activity 15 and was entitled to the remaining grant payment, while CINEA argued that the activity was not completed and thus the payment was not due.
3. It provides the legal reasoning of the General Court, which examines the obligations of CINEA concerning grant payments, the conditions for reducing the grant amount, and whether the applicant had fulfilled its obligations under the grant agreement.
4. It concludes that the applicant had not fully completed Activity 15 as required by the grant agreement and that CINEA was justified in reducing the grant amount.
5. Finally, it rules on the allocation of costs, ordering the applicant to bear its own costs and those of CINEA.
The main provisions of the act are:
* The applicant sought a declaration that it had correctly implemented its activity and was entitled to the full grant, or alternatively, the annulment of CINEA’s letter stating that the activity’s completion rate was 0%.
* The grant agreement was concluded following a call for proposals under the 2014 multiannual work program “Motorways of the Sea” within the framework of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
* Activity 15 aimed to carry out a pilot project for the executive design of a new innovative dual-fuel vessel and the construction of vessel parts related to LNG engines and the propulsion system.
* The General Court found that Activity 15 was not fully completed by the deadline specified in the grant agreement, as the vessel was not operational, and the applicant had not provided sufficient guarantees for its completion.
* The General Court rejected the applicant’s arguments that CINEA had breached its contractual obligations or violated principles of good faith.
The most important provisions for its use are:
* **Article II.24.3**: CINEA is obliged to make the balance payment if the other party has completed the execution of its obligations.
* **Article II.25.4**: If the action is not correctly executed in accordance with Annex I of this convention, CINEA may reduce the amount of the grant in proportion to the incorrect execution of the action.
* **Article I.4 of Annex I**: Description of activities. Activity 15 was described as a pilot project for the technical design and construction of an innovative LNG vessel.
Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Planistat Europe et Hervé-Patrick Charlot contre Commission européenne.#Responsabilité non contractuelle – Règlement (CE) no 1073/1999 – Enquête externe de l’OLAF – Affaire “Eurostat” – Transmission à des autorités judiciaires nationales d’informations relatives à des faits susceptibles de poursuites pénales avant l’issue de l’enquête – Dépôt d’une plainte par la Commission avant l’issue de l’enquête – Procédure pénale nationale – Non-lieu définitif – Violation suffisamment caractérisée d’une règle de droit ayant pour objet de conférer des droits aux particuliers – Lien de causalité.#Affaire T-735/20 RENV.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of the European Union regarding a claim for damages brought by Planistat Europe and Hervé-Patrick Charlot against the European Commission. The case concerns alleged damages resulting from actions taken by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission in the context of the “Eurostat” affair.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment addresses whether the Commission incurred non-contractual liability due to the actions of OLAF and the Commission related to an investigation into financial irregularities within Eurostat. The core issue is whether OLAF’s transmission of information to French judicial authorities and the Commission’s subsequent complaint constituted a sufficiently serious breach of EU law that caused harm to the applicants. The court ultimately rejects the applicant’s claims, finding that the necessary conditions for establishing the Union’s liability were not met.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes the factual background of the dispute, including the creation of the Eurostat datashop network, the contracts between Eurostat and Planistat, and the OLAF investigations.
* **Prior Proceedings:** Summarizes the previous proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including the initial judgment of the General Court, the appeal to the Court of Justice, and the Court of Justice’s decision to partially annul the General Court’s judgment and refer the case back.
* **Claims After Referral:** Outlines the claims made by the parties following the referral of the case back to the General Court.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the court’s reasoning.
* **Subject Matter of the Dispute After Referral:** Clarifies the scope of the case following the Court of Justice’s judgment, specifying which claims remain admissible.
* **Existence of a Sufficiently Serious Breach:** Examines whether OLAF’s transmission of information and the Commission’s alleged defamatory denunciation constituted a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.
* **Causal Link:** Assesses whether there was a causal link between the alleged illegal conduct and the claimed damages.
* **Costs:** Decides on the allocation of costs between the parties.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The key provisions and changes in this judgment relate to the assessment of OLAF’s conduct when transmitting information to national judicial authorities. The Court of Justice, in its earlier ruling, directed the General Court to specifically examine the credibility and content of the information transmitted by OLAF, the intention behind the transmission, and whether the information could justify the opening of a judicial inquiry.
The General Court’s judgment focuses on:
* The content and credibility of the information contained in OLAF’s note to the French authorities.
* Whether OLAF had sufficient evidence to suggest that the transmitted information contained facts that could constitute a criminal offense under French law.
* The intention behind OLAF’s transmission of the information.
* Whether the Commission’s complaint to the French authorities constituted a defamatory denunciation.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment for future use are the clarifications regarding the standard of diligence required of OLAF when transmitting information to national authorities. The court emphasizes that OLAF must have more than a mere suspicion but does not need conclusive proof before transmitting information. The judgment also clarifies that the legality of OLAF’s actions must be assessed based on the information available to it at the time of the transmission, not based on subsequent judicial outcomes.
Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 16 juillet 2025.#Abacus Research AG contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque verbale Aba – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative antérieure ABA – Motif relatif de refus – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-553/24.
This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a trademark dispute. The court dismisses the appeal by Abacus Research AG against a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had rejected the registration of the word mark “Aba” due to a risk of confusion with an earlier figurative EU trademark “ABA” owned by the American Bar Association.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Abacus Research AG sought to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
2. **Background:**
* Abacus Research AG applied for international registration designating the EU for the word mark “Aba” for goods and services in classes 9, 42, and 45, including software and related services.
* The American Bar Association opposed the registration based on its earlier figurative EU trademark “ABA” for goods and services in classes 9 and 45, including downloadable mobile applications and legal information services.
* The Opposition Division upheld the opposition, finding a likelihood of confusion.
* The Board of Appeal rejected Abacus Research AG’s appeal.
3. **Arguments of the Parties:**
* Abacus Research AG argued that there was no likelihood of confusion due to a lack of similarity between the goods and services, the weak distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and significant differences between the signs.
* The EUIPO and the American Bar Association contested these arguments.
4. **Legal Analysis:**
* The court examined whether the EUIPO correctly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trademarks.
* The court assessed the relevant public, the similarity of the goods and services, the similarity of the signs, and the likelihood of confusion.
5. **Court’s Findings:**
* The relevant public consisted of both the general public and professionals.
* The goods and services were either identical or similar to a medium or high degree.
* The signs were visually highly similar and phonetically identical.
* There was a likelihood of confusion because the public could believe that the goods and services came from the same or economically linked undertakings.
6. **Decision:** The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Abacus Research AG to pay the costs of the American Bar Association.
The most important provision for its use is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trademarks. The court’s analysis provides guidance on how this provision is to be interpreted and applied in practice, particularly in cases involving similar signs and related goods and services.
