Review of the EU legislation for 24/07/2025

Review of Legal Acts

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/856

This regulation introduces a new minimum size of 45 cm for turbot caught in the Black Sea. It prohibits retaining, transhipping, landing, storing, selling, or displaying any turbot smaller than this size. This measure aligns EU law with recommendations from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1500

This regulation establishes a list of countries outside the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK that are participating in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) for the purposes of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2025. Operators must consult this list to determine their obligations regarding emissions monitoring, reporting, and offsetting.
Ukraine is included in the list of states which are considered to be applying CORSIA for the purposes of Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions in 2025.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1470

This regulation mandates that essential information on organic operator certificates will remain publicly accessible in the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) for five years from the date of issuance. It also requires Member States to publish lists of operators exempt from the certificate obligation on a single national website.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1468

This regulation authorizes the use of a specific preparation containing Bacillus subtilis and Lentilactobacillus buchneri as a silage additive for all animal species. Conditions of use include dry matter range of 32-65% with the additive to be used with easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material. Feed business operators must implement operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks. It is recommended to use personal protective equipment and the label must indicate conditions of use and dosage.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1465

This regulation authorizes the use of two preparations of Enterococcus faecium as silage additives for all animal species. It specifies minimum dosage, storage conditions, and safety measures for operators. Continued marketing and use of feed additives and feed containing them produced and labelled before August 12, 2026, in accordance with the rules applicable before August 12, 2025, until existing stocks are depleted.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1466

This regulation amends existing rules on pharmacovigilance activities, covering the content of the pharmacovigilance system master file, subcontracting of pharmacovigilance activities, quality systems audits, monitoring of the Eudravigilance database, terminology, reporting of adverse reactions, and post-authorisation safety studies. It includes enhanced requirements for documenting subcontracting arrangements and requires registration of post-authorisation safety studies in an electronic register maintained by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1441

This regulation updates lists of food and feed subject to increased checks at the EU border due to contamination risks. It adjusts control frequencies for specific products from certain countries and introduces a transitional period for certain goods from India.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1534

This regulation introduces a phased implementation of the Entry/Exit System (EES) across EU member states, allowing for a gradual roll-out over 180 days. It mandates the creation of roll-out plans, progressive increase in EES use, and the continued stamping of travel documents.

General Court Judgment – “Magic Crown” Trade Mark Dispute

The General Court ruled that the trade mark “Magic Crown” can be registered, despite the existence of an earlier trade mark “Crown”, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the two. The court emphasized that the element “crown” has a weak distinctive character and the addition of “Magic” to “Crown” was deemed sufficient to differentiate the marks.

General Court Judgment – “JET LAG” Trade Mark Dispute

The General Court rejected the trademark application for “JET LAG” for cosmetics and skincare products, finding the term descriptive. The court found that the term “jet lag” directly relates to a characteristic of the goods, namely their intended purpose of combating the effects of jet lag on the skin.

General Court Judgment – Three-Dimensional EU Trade Mark for an Inhaler

The General Court dismissed Glaxo Group’s action, upholding EUIPO’s decision that the three-dimensional EU trade mark for the shape of an inhaler, characterized by a specific lilac and deep purple color combination, is invalid. The court concluded that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment and that the applicant failed to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness throughout the European Union.

General Court Judgment – Tax Dispute between ECB and Employee

The court confirms that for EU staff members taking leave resulting in a salary for less than a full month, the EU tax rate is determined by the hypothetical full monthly salary, not just the reduced salary received. The tax is then applied pro rata to the days actually worked.

General Court Judgment – “IMPOSSIBLE BAKERS” Trade Mark Dispute

The General Court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between the earlier EU word mark “IMPOSSIBLE” and the later EU figurative mark “IMPOSSIBLE BAKERS” due to sufficient visual differences between the marks.

General Court Judgment – “HOMM THE SOUND OF NATURE” Trade Mark Dispute

The General Court annuls the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had rejected an opposition to the registration of the figurative mark “HOMM THE SOUND OF NATURE” based on the earlier word mark “HOME OF NATURE”. The General Court found that the Board of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the similarity of the marks and the likelihood of confusion.

General Court Judgment – Recruitment Dispute with European Commission

The Court annuls the Commission’s decision based on the unlawful delegation of the interview to the Head of Cabinet, because it was not justified by imperative service needs, as required by the Equality Policy Decision. The Court dismisses the applicant’s claim for damages.

General Court Judgment – Restrictive Measures against OT

The Court dismisses OT’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the sanctions lists. The Court finds that while the Council initially failed to provide OT with certain documents in a timely manner, this did not prejudice his ability to defend his rights.

General Court Judgment – EU Design Dispute

The court agreed with the EUIPO that the contested design did not produce a different overall impression on an informed user compared to an earlier design, determining that the design lacked individual character.

General Court Judgment – Pension Rights Dispute

The judgment confirms that for EU staff members taking leave resulting in a salary for less than a full month, the EU tax rate is determined by the hypothetical full monthly salary, not just the reduced salary received. The tax is then applied pro rata to the days actually worked.

General Court Judgment – Environmental NGO vs European Commission

The court annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission was wrong to reject Bloom’s request for internal review as inadmissible.

General Court Judgment – Disciplinary Procedure against Commission Official

The court annuls the Commission’s decision in part, specifically because the Commission incorrectly considered Mr. Stanecki’s attitude during the disciplinary proceedings as an aggravating circumstance.

General Court Judgment – Pernod Ricard vs West End Drinks

The General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had rejected Pernod Ricard’s opposition. The court found that the Board of Appeal’s decision contained several contradictions and inconsistencies in its reasoning.

General Court Judgment – UBS Group AG v. European Commission

The General Court partially annuls the Commission’s decision, reducing the fine imposed on Credit Suisse due to errors in the calculation of the “proxy” used to determine the value of sales related to the infringement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XXI (Statistics)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1720 into the EEA Agreement, ensuring updated methods for compiling harmonised indices of consumer prices are legally binding within the EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (CO2 Emissions)

This decision incorporates recent EU regulations concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles into the EEA Agreement. The regulation incorporates regulations that establish procedures for approving innovative technologies and verifying CO2 emissions.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Protocol 47 (Wine)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2742, registering “Urbezo” as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), into the EEA Agreement, ensuring its recognition and protection within the EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XI (Short-Range Devices)

This decision incorporates Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105, updating harmonised technical conditions for short-range devices, into the EEA Agreement. Additionally, it repeals Implementing Decision 2014/641/EU.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Drones)

This decision incorporates regulations on the airworthiness and operation of unmanned aircraft systems (drones) into the EEA Agreement, including Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1108 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1110.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex IX (Financial Services)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3215, correcting language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 on technical screening criteria for sustainable investments, into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Dangerous Goods)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1762, amending Directive 2008/68/EC on inland transport of dangerous goods, into the EEA Agreement, concerning national derogations.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex II (Organic Production Logo)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2867, which concerns the presentation of the organic production logo of the European Union, into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex IX (Financial Services)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1618, amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/763 on supervisory reporting and public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex II (Fertilizers)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2788 into the EEA Agreement, specifically addressing polymers in Component Material Category 11, ensuring consistent technical regulations for fertilizers.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Air Carriers Ban)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3137 into the EEA Agreement, updating the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the Union.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (Emission Allowances)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2441 into the EEA Agreement, laying down rules for climate-neutrality plans needed for free allocation of emission allowances.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex II (Plant Protection)

This decision amends Annex II of the EEA Agreement to incorporate several Commission Implementing Regulations concerning plant protection products, including approvals and non-renewals of active substances.

Decision No 94/2025 – Amending Annex II (Agricultural Substances)

This decision incorporates two Commission Implementing Regulations ((EU) 2024/2878 and (EU) 2024/2848) into the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning Allium fistulosum, fenpyrazamine and flumetralin.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Aviation Safety)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1403 into the EEA Agreement, concerning the accreditation of qualified entities by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex VI (Social Security)

This decision incorporates Administrative Commission Decision No H14 regarding guidance notes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and telework into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex II (Fertilizing Products)

This decision incorporates three Commission Delegated Regulations related to EU fertilising products into the EEA Agreement: (EU) 2024/2786, (EU) 2024/2787, and (EU) 2024/2790. Regulations concern Enterococcaceae, mulch films, and polymers used in component materials.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex IX (Financial Services)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/215 into the EEA Agreement, determining the UK’s regulatory framework for central counterparties as equivalent for a limited time.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XXI (Statistics)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2182, concerning technical specifications for a sample survey on the use of information and communication technologies for the reference year 2025.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XXII (Company Law)

This decision incorporates Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2862, amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 regarding International Accounting Standard 21, into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Aviation Security)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1255 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2024) 2826, updating detailed measures for implementing common basic standards in aviation security, into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (Electronic Waste)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3229 into the EEA Agreement, concerning changes on shipments of electrical and electronic waste under the Basel Convention.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex IX (Financial Services)

This decision amends Annex IX to the EEA Agreement to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2023/606, which itself amends Regulation (EU) 2015/760 regarding European long-term investment funds (ELTIFs).

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (Emission Allowances)

This decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/873 into the EEA Agreement, concerning transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (Ecolabel)

This decision incorporates Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3179 into the EEA Agreement, extending the validity period for EU Ecolabel criteria and related assessment and verification requirements.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XIII (Air Traffic Management)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1663 on initial trajectory information sharing in Common Project One into the EEA Agreement.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XXI (Statistics)

This decision amends Annex XXI of the EEA Agreement by adding references to new EU regulations. Specifically, it adds an indent to point 18qe regarding Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/167, and inserts new points (18qz to 18qze) after point 18qy, referencing Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2021/1223, (EU) 2022/2094, (EU) 2023/2527, (EU) 2023/2529 and Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/1898, (EU) 2024/297.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex XX (Vehicles Emissions)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3098 into the EEA Agreement, specifying performance values for manufacturers of new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for 2023.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee – Amending Annex IX (Financial Services)

This decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910 into the EEA Agreement, pertaining to the form and content of information required for cross-border activities of Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and their management companies.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/856 of 5 May 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2910 on the implementation of the Union’s international obligations, as referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, under the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/856 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2910, focusing on the implementation of the Union’s international obligations under the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The key change introduces a prohibition on retaining, transhipping, landing, storing, selling, and displaying turbot in the Black Sea that is smaller than 45 cm. This amendment aligns Union law with Recommendation GFCM/47/2024/8 adopted during the 47th GFCM annual meeting.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 modifies Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2910 by adding a definition for the “Black Sea” and inserting a new Article 4a specifically addressing turbot. This new article prohibits targeting, retaining, transhipping, landing, transporting, storing, displaying, or offering for sale turbot below the minimum conservation reference size of 45 cm in the Black Sea. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication and will apply until 31 December 2026.

The most important provision is the introduction of Article 4a, which prohibits any activities related to turbot below 45 cm in the Black Sea. This measure directly impacts Union fishing vessels operating in that area, requiring them to adhere to the specified minimum conservation reference size for turbot.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1500 of 23 July 2025 on the list of States which are considered to be applying CORSIA for the purposes of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council for emissions in 2025

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1500 establishes a list of countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland, and the United Kingdom that are considered to be applying the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) for the purposes of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2025. This regulation ensures that the EU ETS appropriately implements CORSIA, a global scheme designed to reduce carbon emissions from international aviation.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the list of countries applying CORSIA for the purposes of Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions in 2025 is set out in the Annex to the 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 contains an exhaustive list of 96 states considered to be applying CORSIA for the specified purposes.

The main provision of this regulation is the list of states in the Annex. This list is crucial for determining which international flights are subject to CORSIA requirements under the EU ETS. Operators need to consult this list to understand their obligations regarding emissions monitoring, reporting, and offsetting for flights to and from these listed countries.

****
Ukraine is included in the list of states which are considered to be applying CORSIA for the purposes of Directive 2003/87/EC for emissions in 2025.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1470 of 23 July 2025 on the arrangements for the publication of the lists of operators and groups of operators and of essential information relating to the certificate provided to operators and groups of operators in accordance with Article 35(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1470 sets out rules for publishing lists of organic operators and essential certificate information. It aims to increase transparency in the organic production control system by ensuring that key details about certified operators are publicly available. The Regulation also addresses the publication of lists of operators exempt from the requirement to hold a certificate.

The Regulation consists of 4 articles. Article 1 mandates that essential information on organic operator certificates issued under Regulation (EU) 2018/848 remains publicly accessible in the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) for five years from the date of issuance. Article 2 requires Member States to publish lists of operators exempt from the certificate obligation, linking to a single national internet website. Article 3 outlines the cooperation between the Commission and Member States in establishing and updating website links to these national lists. Article 4 specifies the date of entry into force of the Regulation.

The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures the continued public availability of essential certificate information in TRACES for five years. This includes the certificate number, operator details, control body information, activities, product categories, dates of issuance, validity, renewal, expiry, suspension, or withdrawal, and product directory/quantity. This extended availability aims to reduce administrative burdens on operators needing to verify supplier compliance and enhances the ability of authorities to conduct effective controls and traceability exercises.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1468 of 22 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of Bacillus subtilis DSM 33862 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 12856 as a feed additive for all animal species

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1468 authorises the use of a preparation containing *Bacillus subtilis* DSM 33862 and *Lentilactobacillus buchneri* DSM 12856 as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive is classified as a technological additive, specifically a silage additive, aimed at improving the aerobic stability of silage. The Regulation specifies conditions for use, including minimum content levels and safety measures for users to mitigate potential sensitisation risks.

The Regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 authorises the preparation as a feed additive, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 states that the regulation comes 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, the target animal species, and other provisions, including storage conditions, minimum dosage, and usage limitations.

Key provisions of the Regulation include:
* **Authorisation of the additive:** The preparation of *Bacillus subtilis* DSM 33862 and *Lentilactobacillus buchneri* DSM 12856 is officially approved for use in animal feed as a silage additive.
* **Conditions of use:** The additive must be used with fresh plant material that falls within a dry matter range of 32-65%. It is also specified that the additive should only be used with easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material.
* **Safety measures:** Feed business operators must implement operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks. The use of personal protective equipment (skin and breathing protection) is recommended where risks cannot be eliminated.
* **Labelling requirements:** The label of the additive and premixtures must indicate that it is recommended to use the additive only with fresh plant material having a dry matter range of 32-65%.
* **Dosage:** The minimum dose of the additive, when not used in combination with other micro-organisms as silage additives, is 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh plant material.
* **End of authorisation period:** The authorisation is valid until 12 August 2035.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1465 of 22 July 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of Enterococcus faecium ATCC 53519 and a preparation of Enterococcus faecium ATCC 55593 as feed additives for all animal species

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1465 authorises the use of two preparations of *Enterococcus faecium* as feed additives for all animal species. These additives are classified as technological additives, specifically silage additives, aimed at improving the preservation of nutrients in silage. The regulation addresses the safety and efficacy of these additives, setting conditions for their use and handling to protect both animal and human health.

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 authorises the preparations of *Enterococcus faecium* ATCC 53519 and *Enterococcus faecium* ATCC 55593, as specified in the annex, for use as silage additives in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions outlined in the annex. Article 2 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued marketing and use of feed additives and feed containing them produced and labelled before August 12, 2026, in accordance with the rules applicable before August 12, 2025, until existing stocks are depleted. 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 numbers, composition, analytical methods, and conditions of use for each authorised additive.

The most important provisions for users include the specific conditions of use outlined in the Annex, such as the minimum dosage of the additives, the requirement to indicate storage conditions in the directions for use, and the need for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organisational measures to mitigate potential risks to users. The regulation also mandates the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated through other measures. The authorisation is valid until August 12, 2035.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1466 of 22 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012 on the performance of pharmacovigilance activities provided for in Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1466 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012, which sets out the implementing measures for the performance of pharmacovigilance activities. The new regulation aims to refine and update these measures based on practical experience, technical and scientific progress, and international harmonization in pharmacovigilance, while maintaining a high level of public health protection. The amendments address the content of the pharmacovigilance system master file, subcontracting of pharmacovigilance activities, quality systems audits, monitoring of the Eudravigilance database, terminology, reporting of adverse reactions, and post-authorisation safety studies.

The regulation modifies several articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012. These changes include clarifying the documentation requirements for deviations in pharmacovigilance procedures, detailing the obligations of third parties involved in subcontracted pharmacovigilance activities, and specifying the content and scope of quality system audits. It also refines the monitoring of the Eudravigilance database, updates the terminology used for pharmacovigilance activities, and sets out requirements for reporting suspected adverse reactions and updates to periodic safety update reports. Additionally, it mandates the registration of post-authorisation safety studies in an electronic register maintained by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Key provisions of the act include the enhanced requirements for documenting subcontracting arrangements for pharmacovigilance tasks, ensuring that third parties agree to audits and inspections. The clarification of the marketing authorization holders’ responsibilities in monitoring the Eudravigilance database and the requirements for signal validation are also important. The updated terminology and reporting standards aim to facilitate better interoperability and exchange of information. Finally, the requirement to include updates on risk minimization measures in periodic safety update reports and to register post-authorization safety studies enhances transparency and oversight.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1441 of 18 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency measures governing the entry into the Union of certain goods from certain third countries implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/625 and (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1441 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 regarding increased official controls and emergency measures for certain goods entering the Union from specific third countries. The regulation aims to protect human health by updating lists of food and feed subject to increased checks due to contamination risks like mycotoxins and pesticide residues. It adjusts control frequencies for specific products from certain countries based on recent risk data and compliance improvements.

The regulation modifies several articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, specifically Articles 3, 9, 10, 14, and Annexes I, II, and IV. It updates sampling and analysis methods for mycotoxin controls, clarifies identification code requirements for consignments, and revises compliance standards for contaminants. The regulation also introduces a transitional period for certain goods from India and updates the model official certificate in Annex IV to reflect these changes.

The most important provisions include the updated lists in Annexes I and II, which detail specific countries and products subject to increased official controls or special conditions upon entry into the EU. Annex I lists products with a temporary increase in official controls, specifying the country of origin, food/feed type, hazard, and frequency of checks. Annex II lists food and feed subject to special conditions due to contamination risks, requiring official certificates and specific analyses. The transitional period for drumsticks and yardlong beans from India is also crucial, allowing entry under certain conditions for a limited time.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1534 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2025 on temporary derogations from certain provisions of Regulations (EU) 2017/2226 and (EU) 2016/399 as regards the progressive start of operations of the Entry/Exit System

Here’s a breakdown of Regulation (EU) 2025/1534:

1. **Essence of the Act:**

This regulation introduces temporary adjustments to the Entry/Exit System (EES) to allow for a phased implementation across EU member states. It addresses concerns about the EES’s resilience and potential border congestion by enabling a gradual roll-out over 180 days. During this period, member states can progressively start using the EES at selected border crossing points or lanes. The regulation also includes temporary exceptions to certain rules in the Schengen Borders Code and the EES Regulation to accommodate this progressive implementation.

2. **Structure, Main Provisions, and Changes:**

* **Roll-out Plans and Reporting:** The regulation mandates the creation of both a high-level roll-out plan by eu-LISA (the EU agency for IT systems in justice and home affairs) and national roll-out plans by each member state. These plans detail how the EES will be progressively implemented, including specific thresholds and requirements for each phase. Member states must also provide monthly reports on their progress.
* **Phased Implementation:** Member states are required to progressively increase the use of the EES over a 180-day period. This includes starting with a limited number of border crossing points and gradually expanding to full implementation. Specific targets are set for the percentage of border crossings to be registered in the EES during each phase.
* **Biometric Data:** The regulation allows for a period where member states can operate the EES without mandatory biometric data collection. However, after a certain point, the use of biometric functionalities becomes mandatory at an increasing number of border crossing points.
* **Border Checks and Data Handling:** During the progressive implementation, border authorities are required to systematically stamp travel documents. The regulation also provides guidelines on how to handle discrepancies between stamps and EES data, prioritizing EES data in most cases, especially when biometric data is involved.
* **Derogations:** Several articles of the EES Regulation and the Schengen Borders Code are temporarily suspended or modified to accommodate the progressive implementation. This includes the suspension of the automated calculator for the duration of authorized stays and the automated identification of overstayers.
* **Suspension Mechanism:** Member states are granted the possibility to temporarily suspend EES operations at border crossing points under specific circumstances, such as system failures or excessive traffic.

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

* **Progressive Roll-out:** Member states have flexibility in how they implement the EES during the initial 180 days, allowing them to adapt to the new system and address potential issues.
* **Stamping of Travel Documents:** The continued stamping of travel documents during the progressive implementation phase is crucial.
* **Handling Data Discrepancies:** Border authorities need to be aware of the guidelines for handling discrepancies between stamps and EES data to ensure consistent and fair treatment of travelers.
* **Suspension Option:** The ability to suspend EES operations in certain situations provides a safety net to prevent major disruptions at border crossing points.
* **Information to Third-Country Nationals:** The additional information that Member States shall provide to third-country nationals about the progressive roll-out of the Entry/Exit System.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Löwen Entertainment GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Magic Crown – Earlier EU word mark Crown – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-436/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled that the trade mark “Magic Crown” can be registered, despite the existence of an earlier trade mark “Crown”, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the two. The case revolves around the assessment of similarity between the two marks and the distinctiveness of the term “Crown.”

The structure of the judgment includes:

1. **Background:** Outlines the application for the “Magic Crown” trade mark, the opposition filed by Löwen Entertainment based on its earlier “Crown” trade mark, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal.
2. **Forms of Order Sought:** Lists the requests made by each party (Löwen Entertainment, EUIPO, and Wazdan Holding) regarding the judgment and costs.
3. **Law:** Details the legal basis for the judgment, primarily Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 concerning the likelihood of confusion between trade marks.
4. **Analysis:**
* Defines the relevant public and their level of attention.
* Compares the goods and services covered by the trade marks, finding them identical or similar.
* Compares the signs, assessing the distinctiveness and dominance of the elements “Magic” and “Crown.”
* Visually, phonetically, and conceptually compares the signs, finding a low degree of similarity.
* Assesses the likelihood of confusion, concluding that there is none due to the low similarity and the weak distinctiveness of “Crown.”
5. **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.

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

* **Distinctiveness of Elements:** The court emphasizes that the element “crown” has a weak distinctive character in relation to the goods and services at issue. This is because it can be seen as a laudatory term indicating superior quality and is commonly used in the gaming market.
* **Overall Impression:** The judgment underscores the importance of assessing the overall impression created by the marks, rather than dissecting them into individual components. The addition of “Magic” to “Crown” was deemed sufficient to differentiate the marks.
* **Likelihood of Confusion:** The court reiterates that a likelihood of confusion requires both similarity between the marks and similarity between the goods/services. In this case, despite the identical/similar goods/services, the low similarity between the marks meant there was no likelihood of confusion.
* **Interdependence Principle:** The court applies the principle of interdependence, noting that a lower degree of similarity between the marks can be offset by a higher degree of similarity between the goods/services, and vice versa. However, in this case, the low similarity of the marks was not offset by the identical/similar goods/services.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Summer Fridays LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark JET LAG – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-472/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the trademark application for the word mark “JET LAG” for cosmetics and skincare products. The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reject the trademark application based on the grounds that the term is descriptive. The court found that the term “jet lag” directly relates to a characteristic of the goods, namely their intended purpose of combating the effects of jet lag on the skin.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The judgment addresses an action brought by Summer Fridays LLC against the EUIPO’s decision to refuse the registration of the word mark “JET LAG” for goods in Class 3, specifically cosmetics and skincare products.
* The core legal issue is whether the mark “JET LAG” is descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that exclusively consist of signs or indications that may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods or services.
* The General Court dismisses the applicant’s claim, supporting the EUIPO’s view that the term “jet lag” is directly and immediately understood by the relevant public as a description of a characteristic of the goods, namely their intended purpose of alleviating the physical symptoms of jet lag on the skin.
* The court considers and rejects the applicant’s arguments that the Board of Appeal did not account for the differences between the goods, that there isn’t a direct link between the mark and the goods, and that EUIPO had previously accepted a similar mark.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001):** The key takeaway is the interpretation and application of the descriptiveness clause in EU trademark law. A mark will be refused registration if it directly and immediately conveys the characteristics of the goods or services to the relevant public without requiring further thought.
* **Relevant Public:** The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the perception of the relevant public (in this case, the English-speaking public in the EU) when assessing descriptiveness.
* **Homogeneous Goods:** The judgment confirms that if goods are sufficiently interlinked and form a homogeneous category, the Board of Appeal can adopt general reasoning for all of those goods when assessing descriptiveness.
* **EUIPO’s Previous Decisions:** The court reiterates that it is not bound by EUIPO’s previous decisions and that the legality of decisions must be assessed solely on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of an inhaler – Absolute ground for invalidity – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94 – Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision – Res judicata – Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-432/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for the annulment and alteration of a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of a three-dimensional EU trade mark for the shape of an inhaler, owned by Glaxo Group Ltd, which Cipla Europe NV sought to invalidate.

The core of the judgment revolves around whether the shape of the inhaler, characterized by a specific lilac and deep purple color combination, possesses distinctive character, either inherently or acquired through use. The General Court dismisses Glaxo Group’s action, upholding EUIPO’s decision that the trade mark is invalid. The court addresses pleas related to res judicata, inherent distinctive character, distinctive character acquired through use, and the obligation to state reasons.

The court examines whether the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the inherent distinctive character of the contested mark, specifically focusing on the color combination and the shape of the inhaler. It also assesses whether the Board of Appeal failed to comply with the principle of res judicata, and whether the applicant demonstrated that the contested mark had acquired distinctive character through use. The court concludes that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment and that the applicant failed to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness throughout the European Union.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 July 2025.DO v European Central Bank.Civil service – ECB staff – Remuneration – Parental leave – Tax for the benefit of the European Union – First paragraph of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 – Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation – Tax rate – Assessment of tax.Case T-180/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between an ECB (European Central Bank) employee, DO, and the ECB itself, concerning the calculation of the EU tax on the employee’s salary during a month in which he took parental leave. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the ECB.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses DO’s claim that the ECB incorrectly calculated his EU tax for July 2023, a month in which he took 11 days of unpaid parental leave. DO argued that the tax should have been calculated only on the basis of the remuneration he actually received for the 10 days he worked, while the ECB applied the tax rate applicable to his full monthly salary.

The court examines three pleas made by DO:

1. **Infringement of Regulation No. 260/68:** DO argued that the ECB violated the rules for calculating the tax as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68. The court interprets Article 7 of Regulation No 260/68, which stipulates that when a taxable payment covers less than a month, the tax rate should be that of the “corresponding monthly payment.” The court concludes that the ECB’s interpretation of this article is correct, meaning the tax rate should be based on what the employee would have earned for a full month of work, even if they worked less.
2. **Breach of Equal Treatment:** DO claimed that the ECB unfairly applied the same tax calculation method to employees taking parental leave and those taking other forms of unpaid leave, arguing these situations are not comparable. The court rejects this, stating that both types of leave are unpaid, and therefore, from a remuneration perspective, the situations are the same.
3. **Breach of Obligation to State Reasons:** DO argued that the ECB did not adequately explain its reasoning for the tax calculation. The court finds that the ECB provided sufficient explanation in its decisions rejecting DO’s administrative review and grievance procedure.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The key takeaway from this judgment is the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No. 260/68. The court confirms that for EU staff members taking leave resulting in a salary for less than a full month, the EU tax rate is determined by the hypothetical full monthly salary, not just the reduced salary received. The tax is then applied pro rata to the days actually worked.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Impossible Foods Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark IMPOSSIBLE BAKERS – Earlier EU word mark IMPOSSIBLE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-67/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between the earlier EU word mark “IMPOSSIBLE” owned by Impossible Foods Inc. and the later EU figurative mark “IMPOSSIBLE BAKERS” applied for by Impossible Foods, SL. The case revolves around an opposition filed by Impossible Foods Inc. against the registration of the “IMPOSSIBLE BAKERS” mark, which was initially upheld by the Opposition Division of the EUIPO, but later overturned by the Board of Appeal.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It starts with the background of the dispute, detailing the marks in question, the goods and services they cover, and the proceedings before the EUIPO. It then outlines the forms of order sought by the parties, followed by the legal reasoning of the court. The court examines whether Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks, was infringed. The court assesses the similarity of the signs, the goods and services, and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark. Finally, it provides a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and rules on the allocation of costs.

The most important provision for practical use is the court’s interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. The court’s analysis of the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, as well as its assessment of the relevant public’s perception and level of attention, provide guidance for future trade mark disputes. The court’s emphasis on the dominant elements of the marks and the overall impression they create is also crucial. The judgment confirms that even when goods are identical, a likelihood of confusion can be avoided if there are sufficient visual differences between the marks.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Robertet, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark HOMM THE SOUND OF NATURE – Earlier EU word mark HOME OF NATURE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-393/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court annuls the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had rejected an opposition to the registration of the figurative mark “HOMM THE SOUND OF NATURE” based on the earlier word mark “HOME OF NATURE”. The General Court found that the Board of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the similarity of the marks and the likelihood of confusion.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The judgment addresses an action brought by Robertet, Inc. against a decision by the EUIPO Board of Appeal.
* The core issue is whether the mark applied for, “HOMM THE SOUND OF NATURE”, is likely to be confused with the earlier registered mark “HOME OF NATURE”.
* The General Court analyzes the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, disagreeing with the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the marks were dissimilar.
* The court emphasizes that the relevant public would likely perceive the element “homm” in the applied-for mark as similar to “home” in the earlier mark.
* Ultimately, the court concludes that the Board of Appeal failed to conduct a proper global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
* The court orders EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article is the central legal basis for the decision, outlining the grounds for refusing a trade mark registration due to the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark.
* **Assessment of Likelihood of Confusion:** The judgment provides detailed guidance on how to assess the likelihood of confusion, including the importance of considering the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, as well as the perception of the relevant public.
* **Distinctive and Dominant Elements:** The judgment clarifies how to determine the distinctive and dominant elements of a mark, which is crucial for assessing similarity.
* **Global Assessment:** The decision underscores the need for a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, taking into account all relevant factors.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 23 July 2025.James Flett v European Commission.Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Vacancy notice – Management staff at the Commission – Rejection of candidature – Appointment of another candidate – Irregularity in the recruitment procedure – Manifest error of assessment – Plea of illegality – Legal certainty – Commission President delegating to her Head of Cabinet – Liability.Case T-613/23.

This is the judgment of the General Court in the case T-613/23, James Flett v European Commission. The case concerns the rejection of Mr. Flett’s application for the post of Principal Legal Adviser at the Commission Legal Service Trade Policy and World Trade Organisation Team, and the subsequent appointment of another candidate. Mr. Flett is seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision and compensation for the harm he claims to have suffered. The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision of 25 January 2023.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
* It starts with the background of the dispute, detailing the vacancy notice, the selection process, and the applicant’s complaint.
* It then outlines the forms of order sought by the applicant and the Commission.
* The Court then addresses the jurisdiction of the General Court to rule on one of the applicant’s claims.
* The Court defines the subject matter of the action, clarifying that the action is directed against the contested decision, taking into consideration the reasoning in the decision rejecting the complaint.
* The judgment then examines the four pleas in law raised by the applicant: non-compliance with the recruitment procedure, manifest errors of assessment, unlawfulness of the Commission Decision on Gender Equality Policy, and unjustified delegation of power by the Commission President.
* Finally, the Court addresses the claim for damages and the allocation of costs.

The most important provisions of the act are:
* The Court annuls the Commission’s decision based on the fourth plea, which alleges that the President’s delegation of the interview to her Head of Cabinet was unlawful because it was not justified by imperative service needs, as required by the Equality Policy Decision. The Court finds that this constitutes a breach of essential procedural requirements.
* The Court dismisses the applicant’s claim for damages, finding that he has not demonstrated non-material harm that cannot be compensated by the annulment of the decision, nor has he substantiated his claim for material harm related to the loss of opportunity.
* The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, as it was largely unsuccessful in the case.

Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre élargie) du 23 juillet 2025.#OT contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques – Maintien du nom du requérant sur la liste – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Erreur d’appréciation – Droits de la défense – Proportionnalité.#Affaire T-1095/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of the European Union, delivered on July 23, 2025, in Case T-1095/23, concerning OT against the Council of the European Union. The judgment addresses restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed due to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. Specifically, it concerns the freezing of funds and the listing of individuals and entities subject to these measures.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures against actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity, the initial listing of the applicant (OT) following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and subsequent decisions modifying and maintaining these measures.
2. **Facts Subsequent to the Commencement of Proceedings:** This part details events that occurred after the initial legal action, including further communications between OT and the Council, and additional decisions maintaining OT’s name on the sanctions lists.
3. **Forms of Order Sought:** This section summarizes the requests made by OT (applicant) and the Council (defendant). OT seeks annulment of the decisions maintaining his name on the sanctions lists and an order for the Council to remove his name. The Council requests the rejection of the action and that OT bear the costs.
4. **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court addresses the legal arguments.
* **Jurisdiction of the Court:** The Court first clarifies that it lacks the power to order the Council to remove OT’s name from the lists.
* **Substance:** The Court then examines the merits of OT’s claims, which are based on three main arguments:
* **Error of Assessment:** OT claims the Council incorrectly assessed the facts.
* **Violation of the Principle of Proportionality:** OT argues the sanctions are disproportionate.
* **Violation of the Rights of the Defence:** OT contends his rights were violated due to lack of access to evidence and failure to consider his arguments.
The Court analyzes each of these arguments in detail, examining the evidence and legal reasoning presented by both sides. It considers the reliability of the evidence, the criteria for imposing sanctions, and whether OT’s rights were properly respected.
5. **Costs:** The Court decides who should bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

* The Court dismisses OT’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the sanctions lists.
* The Court finds that while the Council initially failed to provide OT with certain documents in a timely manner, this did not prejudice his ability to defend his rights.
* The Court emphasizes that it is up to the Council to justify the reasons for maintaining a person on the sanctions list, but the person concerned must provide evidence if their personal situation has changed.
* The Court confirms that the Council has a broad discretion in assessing whether the criteria for imposing sanctions are met, but this discretion is subject to judicial review.
* The Court finds that the measures taken against OT were not disproportionate, given the objectives of the sanctions regime.
* The Court clarifies the criteria for being considered an “influential businessman” and for operating in sectors that provide a substantial source of income to the Russian government, which are grounds for imposing sanctions.

**** This judgment is related to the EU’s policy regarding Ukraine and the restrictive measures taken against individuals and entities involved in actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. It has implications for Ukrainians and those doing business in or with Russia.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 23 juillet 2025.#EveMotion GmbH contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Dessin ou modèle de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Dessin ou modèle de l’Union européenne enregistré représentant un pavillon – Dessin ou modèle antérieur – Motif de nullité – Absence de caractère individuel – Article 6 et article 25, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 6/2002.#Affaire T-54/24.

This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the nullity of a registered EU design. The case revolves around a dispute between EveMotion GmbH and WMK Trading GmbH, with the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) as a party.

The judgment concerns the appeal by EveMotion GmbH against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which declared the EU design No. 005490596-0003 (representing a gazebo) invalid due to lack of individual character. WMK Trading GmbH had filed for nullity, arguing that the design lacked individual character compared to an earlier design. The General Court dismisses EveMotion’s appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision.

The key points of the judgment are:
– **Lack of Individual Character:** The court agreed with the EUIPO that the contested design did not produce a different overall impression on an informed user compared to an earlier design.
– **Degree of Freedom of the Designer:** The court found that the designer’s freedom was not limited, despite arguments about technical constraints related to lighting and saturation of the design landscape.
– **Saturation of the State of the Art:** The court determined that EveMotion had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the design landscape for gazebos was saturated, which could have made minor differences more significant.
– **Overall Impression:** The court concluded that the similarities between the contested design and the earlier design outweighed the differences, and therefore the design lacked individual character.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 23 juillet 2025.#FV contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Réformes du statut de 2004 et de 2014 – Mesures transitoires relatives à certaines modalités de calcul des droits à pension – Article 28 de l’annexe XIII du statut – Agents auxiliaires devenus agents temporaires – Agents temporaires devenus fonctionnaires – Taux annuel d’acquisition des droits à pension – Âge de départ à la retraite – Champ d’application de la loi – Égalité de traitement – Devoir de sollicitude – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-533/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between FV, a former official, and the European Commission concerning her pension rights. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union intervened in support of the Commission.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses the calculation of FV’s pension rights, specifically focusing on the applicable transitional provisions following the 2004 and 2014 reforms of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. FV contested the Commission’s decision regarding her pension, arguing that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 28 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations. She claimed that Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII should have been applied instead, and that Article 28 violates the principle of equal treatment. The General Court rejected FV’s claims, upholding the Commission’s decision.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** It outlines the legal framework, including the relevant articles of the Staff Regulations and the Regulations applicable to Other Servants of the European Union (RAA), as amended by the 2004 and 2014 reforms. It describes the transitional measures in Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, designed to protect the acquired rights and legitimate expectations of staff in service before the reforms.
2. **Facts of the Case:** It details FV’s employment history, including her time as an auxiliary agent, temporary agent, and finally, as an official. It describes the Commission’s decision on her pension rights and her subsequent complaint.
3. **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments made by FV, the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council.
4. **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the General Court addresses FV’s claims.
* **Claim 1: Violation of the Scope of the Law:** FV argued that Article 28 of Annex XIII was incorrectly applied to her situation. The Court rejected this, stating that FV met the conditions for Article 28 to apply and that her interpretation of the law was incorrect.
* **Claim 2: Violation of the Principle of Equal Treatment:** FV argued that Article 28 of Annex XIII violated the principle of equal treatment. The Court rejected this, stating that the difference in treatment was objectively justified and not arbitrary.
5. **Decision on Damages:** FV sought damages for alleged failures by the Commission. The Court rejected this claim as inadmissible because FV had not properly raised it in her initial complaint.
6. **Costs:** The Court ordered FV to pay her own costs and those of the Commission.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Article 28 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations:** This article is central to the judgment. It concerns temporary agents whose contract was in force before specific dates (May 1, 2004, or January 1, 2014) and who were later appointed as officials. It provides for an actuarial adjustment of their pension rights acquired as temporary agents to account for changes in the retirement age.
* **Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations:** FV argued that these articles should have been applied instead of Article 28. These articles concern the annual rate of acquisition of pension rights and the retirement age for officials who entered service before specific dates.
* **Principle of Equal Treatment:** FV argued that Article 28 violated this principle. The Court’s analysis of this principle, and its application to the specific facts, is important for understanding the limits of this principle in the context of EU staff regulations.

The General Court’s judgment confirms the validity of the Commission’s decision and clarifies the application of the transitional provisions following the 2004 and 2014 reforms of the Staff Regulations. It emphasizes that the application of Article 28 of Annex XIII is not conditional on an interruption of affiliation to the EU pension scheme.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre élargie) du 23 juillet 2025.#Bloom contre Commission européenne.#Politique commune de la pêche – Résolution de la CTOI relative à la gestion des dispositifs de concentration de poissons – Objection de la Commission – Rejet de la demande de réexamen interne – Article 10, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1367/2006 – Acte susceptible de faire l’objet d’une demande de réexamen interne – Notion de “dispositions qui peuvent aller à l’encontre du droit de l’environnement” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous f), du règlement no 1367/2006.#Affaire T-1049/23.

This court decision concerns a legal challenge by Bloom, an environmental NGO, against the European Commission’s decision to reject Bloom’s request for an internal review of the Commission’s objection to a resolution by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) regarding fish-aggregating devices (FADs).

The court decision is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the roles of Bloom and IOTC, the relevant IOTC resolution, and the Commission’s objection. It then presents the arguments of the parties involved: Bloom, supported by Blue Marine Foundation, argues for the annulment of the Commission’s decision, while the Commission, supported by Spain and France, argues for the rejection of Bloom’s claim. The court then proceeds with its legal reasoning, examining the admissibility and merits of Bloom’s arguments, focusing on whether the Commission’s objection could be considered to run contrary to EU environmental law. Finally, the court rules to annul the Commission’s decision and addresses the allocation of costs.

The court annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission was wrong to reject Bloom’s request for internal review as inadmissible. The court stated that the Commission should have examined whether the reasons for the review presented by Bloom were likely to give rise to plausible doubts, that is, substantial doubts, as to the assessment of environmental law by the Union institution or body when presenting the disputed objection. The court held that the Commission’s objection was likely to have negative effects on the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s environmental policy set out in Article 191 TFEU.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 23 juillet 2025.#Rafal Stanecki contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Procédure disciplinaire – Sanction disciplinaire – Suspension de l’avancement d’échelon – Actes contraires à la dignité de la fonction – Article 12 du statut – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Liberté d’expression – Proportionnalité de la sanction – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-108/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on July 23, 2025, in the case T-108/24, Rafal Stanecki v. European Commission. The case concerns a disciplinary procedure against Mr. Stanecki, a Commission official, and specifically addresses the sanction of suspension of advancement in step imposed on him. The court reviews the Commission’s decision, examining whether it correctly applied the Staff Regulations, particularly regarding actions that could undermine the dignity of the function, freedom of expression, and proportionality of the sanction.

The structure of the judgment includes an overview of the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the legal analysis by the General Court. The court considers four pleas raised by Mr. Stanecki: manifest errors of assessment in the preparatory acts, violation of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations (dignity of the function), violation of freedom of expression, and violation of Articles 10 and 22 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations (disciplinary procedure). The court annuls the Commission’s decision in part, specifically because the Commission incorrectly considered Mr. Stanecki’s attitude during the disciplinary proceedings as an aggravating circumstance. The remainder of the action is dismissed.

The most important provision of the act is the court’s interpretation and application of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression. The court clarifies the extent to which a Commission official can express personal opinions, especially in politically sensitive contexts, without violating their duty to uphold the dignity of their function. The judgment also underscores the importance of properly assessing aggravating and mitigating circumstances in disciplinary proceedings and respecting the rights of defense of the official concerned.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 July 2025.Pernod Ricard v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark The King of Soho – Earlier EU and national word marks SOHO – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-563/23.

This judgment concerns a dispute between Pernod Ricard and West End Drinks regarding the registration of the EU figurative mark “The King of Soho.” Pernod Ricard opposed the registration based on its earlier EU and national word marks “SOHO,” arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion. The General Court annulled the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had rejected Pernod Ricard’s opposition.

The structure of the judgment includes a background of the dispute, the forms of order sought by the parties, and the legal analysis. The court found that the Board of Appeal’s decision contained several contradictions and inconsistencies in its reasoning, specifically regarding the relevant territory and public, the level of attention of the relevant public, and the comparison of the goods at issue (alcoholic beverages). These contradictions made it impossible for the Court to understand the Board of Appeal’s reasoning and to exercise effective judicial review.

The most important provision of the judgment is the annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision due to the contradictory and unintelligible reasoning. This means that EUIPO will have to re-evaluate the case, taking into account the Court’s findings regarding the flaws in the initial assessment. The judgment also clarifies the scope of the General Court’s power to alter decisions and confirms that it cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Board of Appeal when the latter’s reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 July 2025.UBS Group AG, venant aux droits de Credit Suisse Group AG and Others v European Commission.Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sector of Foreign Exchange (Forex) spot trading of G10 currencies – Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Exchanges of information – Agreements or concerted practices relating to G10 foreign exchange activities – Restriction of competition by object – Single and continuous infringement – Principle of sound administration – Rights of the defence – Fines – Basic amount – Proxy for value of sales – Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Unlimited jurisdiction.Case T-84/22.

Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in the UBS Group AG v. European Commission case:

1. **Essence of the Act:**

This judgment concerns a challenge by UBS Group AG, UBS AG, and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd against a European Commission decision that found Credit Suisse liable for participating in anti-competitive practices in the Foreign Exchange (Forex) spot trading market of G10 currencies. The Commission’s decision stated that Credit Suisse was involved in exchanges of commercially sensitive information with other banks via an online chatroom, which restricted competition. The General Court partially annuls the Commission’s decision, reducing the fine imposed on Credit Suisse due to errors in the calculation of the “proxy” used to determine the value of sales related to the infringement.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Background:** The case originated from an application by UBS for immunity from fines, revealing the existence of an alleged infringement in the Forex market. Other banks (Barclays, HSBC, RBS) also submitted applications for reduction of fines. Credit Suisse initially participated in settlement discussions but later withdrew, leading to a separate, standard procedure against them.
* **Commission’s Decision:** The Commission found that Credit Suisse had infringed Article 101(1) TFEU by participating in exchanges of commercially sensitive information, which constituted agreements or concerted practices aimed at restricting competition. The Commission identified three types of conduct: an underlying understanding, exchanges of information, and occasional instances of coordination. Credit Suisse was found liable only for the exchanges of information.
* **Applicants’ Arguments:** The applicants sought annulment of the Commission’s decision or, alternatively, a reduction of the fine, arguing that the exchanges of information were not anti-competitive, that the Commission’s assessment of the market was flawed, and that the fine calculation was incorrect.
* **General Court’s Judgment:** The General Court dismissed most of the applicants’ pleas but found that the Commission had made an error in calculating the “proxy” for the value of sales, which was used as the basis for determining the fine. The Court held that the Commission had not used the “best available figures” in determining the adjustment factor related to market-making activities. As a result, the Court reduced the amount of the fine.

3. **Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**

* **Separate Legal Classifications:** The Court emphasized that the Commission made separate legal classifications for the underlying understanding and the exchanges of information. Credit Suisse was only held liable for the latter.
* **Anticompetitive Nature of Information Exchange:** The Court upheld the Commission’s finding that the exchanges of information constituted anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices, as they reduced uncertainty in the market and influenced the participants’ conduct.
* **Burden of Proof:** The Court reiterated that the Commission bears the burden of proving infringements of competition law and must adduce sufficient evidence.
* **Calculation of the Fine:** The Court found that the Commission erred in calculating the “proxy” for the value of sales, specifically in determining the adjustment factor related to market-making activities. The Court held that the Commission should have used the “best available figures,” which were the Bloomberg BFIX data, to calculate this factor.
* **Unlimited Jurisdiction:** The Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction to reduce the amount of the fine, taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement, as well as the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

This judgment provides important clarification on the application of competition law in the context of Forex trading and highlights the importance of accurate calculation of fines based on reliable data.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 115/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1360]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning statistics. The decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1720, which amends Regulation (EU) 2020/1148 regarding the index compilation of harmonised indices of consumer prices, into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the updated EU regulations on consumer price indices are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 adds a reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1720 in point 19ba of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement, which concerns Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1148. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1720 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and are authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force, and Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the amending regulation into the EEA Agreement. This means that the updated methods for compiling harmonised indices of consumer prices, as detailed in Regulation (EU) 2024/1720, will now be legally binding within the EEA, ensuring consistent statistical practices across the participating countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 110/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1364]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex XX to the EEA Agreement to incorporate recent EU regulations concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. The decision integrates regulations that establish procedures for approving innovative technologies and verifying CO2 emissions, ensuring alignment between the EU and EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) in environmental standards for vehicles. Additionally, it repeals outdated regulations that are no longer applicable.

The decision modifies Annex XX of the EEA Agreement by adding references to three Commission Implementing Regulations: (EU) 2023/2767, (EU) 2023/2866, and (EU) 2024/889. Regulation 2023/2767 sets up a process for approving and certifying innovative technologies that lower CO2 emissions. Regulation 2023/2866 details how to verify CO2 emission and fuel consumption values of cars and vans already in use. Regulation 2024/889 corrects a linguistic error in the Dutch version of Regulation 2023/2866. The decision also removes references to Implementing Regulations (EU) No 725/2011 and (EU) No 427/2014, which are now repealed.

For practical use, the key provisions include the adaptations specified for Regulation 2023/2767, ensuring that applicants from EFTA states receive equal consideration in the approval process for innovative technologies. It also clarifies that approval decisions on eco-innovation technologies are generally applicable and will be integrated into the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the decision modifies Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of Regulation 2023/2866, specifying the roles of the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority in verifying CO2 emissions for manufacturers within their respective regions.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 117/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine [2025/1371]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, which concerns the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2742, which registers “Urbezo” as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), into the EEA Agreement. This inclusion ensures that the PDO status of “Urbezo” is recognized and protected within the European Economic Area. The Decision specifies that it does not apply to Liechtenstein under certain conditions related to its trade agreement with Switzerland.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2742 into Appendix 1 of Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2742 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force date, contingent upon notification under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2742, thereby extending the protection of the “Urbezo” PDO to the EEA member states. This inclusion ensures that only wines produced in accordance with the specifications associated with the “Urbezo” PDO can be marketed as such within the EEA, preventing misuse and protecting the interests of producers and consumers.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 100/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement, [2025/1387]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XI to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105, which updates harmonised technical conditions for short-range devices, into the EEA Agreement. Additionally, it repeals Implementing Decision 2014/641/EU on harmonised technical conditions for wireless audio equipment, as the latter is superseded by Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 amends Annex XI to the EEA Agreement by adding Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105 to the list of relevant acts and repealing point 5czj concerning Commission Implementing Decision 2014/641/EU with effect from 1 July 2025. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105 shall be authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which updates the list of incorporated EU legislation related to electronic communications, audiovisual services, and information society within the EEA Agreement. Specifically, the inclusion of Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/105 ensures that the latest harmonised technical conditions for short-range devices are applicable within the EEA, while the repeal of Implementing Decision 2014/641/EU reflects the updated regulatory landscape.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 103/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1369]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement to incorporate the latest EU regulations regarding the airworthiness and operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. The incorporation of these regulations ensures that the rules governing drones are consistent across the European Economic Area.

The Decision modifies Annex XIII of the EEA Agreement by adding references to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1108 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1110 within the existing points related to airworthiness and operation of unmanned aircraft systems. Specifically, it updates point 66p concerning Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, point 66zbb concerning Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945, and point 66zbc concerning Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. The Decision also states that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the incorporated regulations will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will be authentic.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly amends Annex XIII of the EEA Agreement, integrating the new EU regulations on unmanned aircraft systems. This ensures that the EEA countries align with the EU’s standards for drone airworthiness and operations, facilitating seamless and safe cross-border drone activities within the EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 99/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1388]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning financial services. The Decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3215 into the EEA Agreement. This regulation corrects certain language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, which establishes technical screening criteria for determining when an economic activity contributes significantly to climate change mitigation or adaptation, and ensures it does not harm other environmental objectives.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 adds a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3215 within point 31pa of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, which concerns Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3215 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are considered authentic. Article 3 states the Decision’s entry into force, contingent upon notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section and the EEA Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the correcting regulation into the EEA Agreement, ensuring that the corrected language versions of the technical screening criteria for sustainable investments are legally binding within the EEA. This ensures consistent interpretation and application of the criteria across the EEA member states.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 101/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1389]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning the transport of dangerous goods. The Decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1762 into the EEA Agreement, which itself amends Directive 2008/68/EC on the inland transport of dangerous goods. This incorporation ensures that the EEA Agreement reflects the latest EU regulations regarding national derogations for the transport of dangerous goods.

The act consists of four articles. Article 1 amends point 13c of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement by adding Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1762 to the list of relevant legal acts. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1762 are authentic. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date of the Decision, contingent upon the completion of notifications required by the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union and its EEA Supplement.

The most important provision is Article 1, which effectively extends the application of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1762 to the EEA countries. This means that any changes or updates introduced by that Implementing Decision regarding national derogations for the inland transport of dangerous goods will now also apply within the European Economic Area.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 90/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1357]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2867, which concerns the presentation of the organic production logo of the European Union, into the EEA Agreement. This Decision ensures that the updated EU regulation on organic food labeling also applies within the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 introduces a new indent to point 54b of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, specifically referencing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2867. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2867, once published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal, will be authentic. Article 3 states the Decision’s entry into force date, contingent upon the completion of necessary notifications under the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2867 into the EEA Agreement, thereby extending the EU’s updated rules on the presentation of the organic production logo to the EEA countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 96/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1385]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning financial services. The decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1618, which itself amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/763, into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the updated EU rules regarding supervisory reporting and public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 amends point 14azza of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement by adding reference to the amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1618. Article 2 stipulates that the text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1618 in Icelandic and Norwegian languages will be authentic and published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns its publication in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the EU regulation into the EEA Agreement, extending the scope of updated financial reporting requirements to include EEA member states. This ensures consistent application of rules regarding the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities across the European Economic Area.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 92/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1376]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2788 into the EEA Agreement, specifically addressing polymers in Component Material Category 11. This ensures that the technical regulations and standards related to fertilizers are consistent across the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 adds a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2788 within Chapter XIV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, which concerns Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 on fertilizers. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2788 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force, contingent upon the completion of notifications required by Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2788 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the rules and standards set out in the Delegated Regulation regarding polymers in fertilizers will now also apply within the EEA, ensuring harmonized standards for these products across the participating countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 105/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1373]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee that amends Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning transport regulations. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3137 into the EEA Agreement, updating the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the Union. This ensures that the EEA Agreement aligns with the EU’s updated aviation safety standards.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 adds a new indent to point 66zab of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement, referencing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3137. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3137, once published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, will be authentic. Article 3 states that the Decision will come into force on May 9, 2025, provided all necessary notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the EU regulation on banned air carriers into the EEA Agreement. This ensures uniform application of aviation safety standards across the European Economic Area.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 109/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1365]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XX to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2441 into the EEA Agreement, which lays down rules for the application of Directive 2003/87/EC regarding the content and format of climate-neutrality plans needed for granting free allocation of emission allowances. This ensures that the EEA Agreement reflects the EU’s updated regulations on emission allowances.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 amends Annex XX to the EEA Agreement by inserting a reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2441. Article 2 stipulates that the text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2441 in Icelandic and Norwegian languages shall be authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns the publication of the decision. This decision adds a new regulation to Annex XX of the EEA Agreement without modifying or repealing existing provisions.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2441 into the EEA Agreement. This inclusion means that entities within the European Economic Area must adhere to the rules outlined in the Implementing Regulation concerning climate-neutrality plans for free emission allowances, ensuring consistent environmental standards across the EU and EEA.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 93/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1380]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex II to the EEA Agreement to incorporate several Commission Implementing Regulations concerning plant protection products. These regulations address the approval and non-renewal of certain active substances used in these products. The overall effect is to update the EEA Agreement to align with the EU’s regulations on technical standards, testing, and certification related to plant protection products.

The Decision modifies Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement by adding references to specific Commission Implementing Regulations. These include regulations concerning the non-approval of caffeine as a basic substance, the non-renewal of approval for tritosulfuron and metribuzin, and the extension of approval periods for several other active substances. Specifically, Article 1 lists the amending regulations and where they should be inserted within Annex II. Article 2 ensures that the texts of the incorporated regulations are authentic in Icelandic and Norwegian languages. Articles 3 and 4 cover the entry into force and publication of the decision.

The most important provisions for users are those concerning the specific active substances. The non-approval and non-renewal of certain substances mean that these can no longer be used in plant protection products within the EEA. Conversely, the extension of approval periods for other substances allows for their continued use. Businesses involved in the production, distribution, and use of plant protection products within the EEA need to be aware of these changes to ensure compliance with the updated regulations.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 94/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1378]

This is Decision No 94/2025 of the EEA Joint Committee, which amends Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates two Commission Implementing Regulations ((EU) 2024/2878 and (EU) 2024/2848) into the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning technical regulations, standards, testing, and certification related to agricultural substances. This ensures that the regulations regarding the approval of Allium fistulosum as a basic substance and the extension of approval periods for fenpyrazamine and flumetralin are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

The decision modifies Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement by adding references to Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2024/2878 and (EU) 2024/2848 in point 13a, which concerns Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. Additionally, it inserts a new point 13zzzzzzzzzzzzzzb after point 13zzzzzzzzzzzzzza, specifically referencing Regulation (EU) 2024/2878. The decision also states that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the Implementing Regulations (EU) 2024/2878 and (EU) 2024/2848 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will be authentic.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly amends Annex II of the EEA Agreement, ensuring that the updated EU regulations regarding specific agricultural substances are legally integrated into the EEA framework. This means that businesses and individuals within the EEA must comply with these regulations concerning Allium fistulosum, fenpyrazamine, and flumetralin.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 106/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1375]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1403 into the EEA Agreement, which concerns the accreditation of qualified entities by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This ensures that the regulatory framework for aviation safety is consistent across the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 introduces a new point in Annex XIII, specifically referencing and incorporating Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1403. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1403, once published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal, will be authentic. Article 3 specifies that the Decision will take effect on May 9, 2025, contingent upon all necessary notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement being completed. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section and the EEA Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1403 into the EEA Agreement. This inclusion means that the conditions and procedures for the accreditation of qualified entities by EASA, as detailed in Regulation (EU) 2024/1403, now apply within the EEA, ensuring harmonized aviation safety standards across participating countries.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 95/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement, [2025/1383]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex VI to the EEA Agreement concerning social security. The amendment incorporates Administrative Commission Decision No H14 regarding guidance notes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and telework into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the guidance on social security coordination during the pandemic and the rules for telework are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 amends Annex VI to the EEA Agreement by adding point 3.H14, which references Administrative Commission Decision No H14 of 21 June 2023. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Decision No H14 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are authentic. Article 3 states that the Decision will enter into force on 9 May 2025, provided that all necessary notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Decision No H14 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the guidance provided in Decision No H14 regarding the application of social security regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the rules for telework become legally relevant for EEA member states.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 91/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1381]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The Decision incorporates three Commission Delegated Regulations related to EU fertilising products into the EEA Agreement. These regulations concern Enterococcaceae, mulch films, and polymers used in component materials.

The Decision adds three new indents to point 1 of Chapter XIV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, each referencing one of the Commission Delegated Regulations: (EU) 2024/2786, (EU) 2024/2787, and (EU) 2024/2790. It also stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of these regulations will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will be authentic. The Decision enters into force on 9 May 2025, provided that all necessary notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly amends Annex II of the EEA Agreement by incorporating the three Commission Delegated Regulations. This ensures that the updated EU regulations on fertilising products, including those related to Enterococcaceae, mulch films, and polymers, are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 98/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1370]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning financial services. The Decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/215 into the EEA Agreement, which determines that the regulatory framework for central counterparties in the United Kingdom is equivalent to that of the EU for a limited time. This ensures the continued recognition of the UK’s regulatory standards for central counterparties within the EEA.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It has a preamble outlining the legal basis and the need for the amendment, followed by four articles. Article 1 introduces the amendment by inserting a reference to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/215 into Annex IX of the EEA Agreement. Article 2 ensures that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the Implementing Decision are authentic. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union. There are no previous versions mentioned in the act.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/215 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the EEA countries will recognize the UK’s regulatory framework for central counterparties as equivalent to the EU’s, which is crucial for financial stability and cross-border transactions involving these entities.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 114/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1359]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2182, which concerns the technical specifications for a sample survey on the use of information and communication technologies for the reference year 2025. This decision ensures that the EEA Agreement reflects the updated EU regulations in the field of statistics.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The Decision itself is structured simply:

* **Article 1:** Amends Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement by adding a new point (18qzf) that references Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2182. This effectively integrates the EU regulation into the EEA Agreement.
* **Article 2:** States that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2182, as published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal, are authentic.
* **Article 3:** Specifies the date of entry into force of the Decision, which is 9 May 2025, contingent upon all necessary notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement being made.
* **Article 4:** Mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

The most important provision is Article 1, which incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2182 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the technical specifications, data formats, and quality reporting arrangements outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/2182 now also apply within the EEA framework. Operators and entities subject to the EEA Agreement must comply with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/2182 with respect to the sample survey on the use of information and communication technologies for the reference year 2025.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 116/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1358]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning company law. The decision incorporates Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2862, which amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 regarding International Accounting Standard 21, into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the updated accounting standards are also applicable within the European Economic Area.

The act consists of four articles. Article 1 adds a reference to Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2862 within point 10bb of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement, which concerns Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1803. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Regulation (EU) 2024/2862 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are authentic. Article 3 states the decision’s entry into force, contingent upon the completion of notifications required under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the amending Regulation (EU) 2024/2862 into the EEA Agreement. This means that entities within the EEA will need to comply with the updated International Accounting Standard 21 as amended by the specified EU regulation.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 102/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1363]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement to incorporate the latest EU regulations concerning aviation security. Specifically, it integrates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1255 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2024) 2826, both of which update detailed measures for implementing common basic standards in aviation security. This ensures that EEA member states align with the EU’s updated aviation security protocols.

The Decision is structured with a preamble outlining the need for the amendments, followed by four articles. Article 1 modifies Annex XIII of the EEA Agreement by adding references to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1255 and Implementing Decision C(2024) 2826. Article 2 mandates the publication of the text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1255 in Icelandic and Norwegian in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns the publication of the Decision itself.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the new EU aviation security measures into the EEA Agreement. This means that businesses and individuals involved in aviation within the EEA must comply with the updated standards outlined in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1255 and Implementing Decision C(2024) 2826.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 112/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1374]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XX to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3229 into the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning changes on shipments of electrical and electronic waste as agreed under the Basel Convention. This ensures that EEA member states adhere to the updated regulations regarding the handling of electronic waste shipments.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 introduces a new indent to point 32c of Annex XX, which references Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, and includes the specific citation for Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3229. Article 2 mandates the publication of the text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3229 in Icelandic and Norwegian in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal, ensuring its authenticity in those languages. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date, contingent upon the completion of notifications required by Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 stipulates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3229 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the updated regulations concerning shipments of electrical and electronic waste, as detailed in the incorporated regulation, become legally binding for the EEA member states.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 118/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1362]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning financial services. The amendment incorporates Regulation (EU) 2023/606, which itself amends Regulation (EU) 2015/760 regarding European long-term investment funds (ELTIFs), into the EEA Agreement. Additionally, it addresses how EFTA states should determine non-cooperative jurisdictions in their national legislation, emphasizing alignment with the EU list for tax purposes.

The Decision is structured with a preamble outlining the reasons for the amendment, followed by four articles. Article 1 modifies point 31bgc of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement by adding Regulation (EU) 2023/606 and specifying an adaptation regarding the definition of non-cooperative jurisdictions for EFTA states. Article 2 mandates the publication of the text of Regulation (EU) 2023/606 in Icelandic and Norwegian in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal. Article 3 establishes the entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns the publication of the Decision itself. The main change is the inclusion of the updated EU regulation on ELTIFs into the EEA Agreement, ensuring that the EEA EFTA states also apply the updated rules for these types of investment funds.

The most important provision for practical use is likely the adaptation in Article 1(2). This clarifies how EFTA states should identify non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes within the context of ELTIF investments. Instead of directly referencing the EU list, it allows EFTA states to define non-cooperative jurisdictions based on their national legislation, while still considering the EU list. This provides a degree of flexibility for EFTA states while promoting consistency with EU tax policies.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 108/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1368]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XX to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/873 into the EEA Agreement. This regulation concerns transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances. The Decision ensures the applicability of the updated EU regulation within the European Economic Area.

The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 incorporates the amending Regulation (EU) 2024/873 into point 21all of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement, which concerns environment-related regulations. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Regulation (EU) 2024/873 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and are authentic. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date of the Decision, contingent upon the completion of notifications required by Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement. Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which effectively extends the application of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/873 to the EEA countries. This ensures that the transitional rules for free allocation of emission allowances are harmonised across the EU and the EEA, which is crucial for businesses operating within both regions and for achieving consistent environmental standards.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 107/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1366]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning environmental regulations. The decision incorporates Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3179 into the EEA Agreement, which relates to the extension of the validity period for EU Ecolabel criteria and related assessment and verification requirements. This ensures that the EEA Agreement aligns with the EU’s updated Ecolabel regulations.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble outlining the basis for the decision, followed by four articles. Article 1 amends Annex XX of the EEA Agreement by adding references to Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3179 in relation to Commission Decisions (EU) 2017/175, (EU) 2018/1702, and (EU) 2019/70. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Decision (EU) 2024/3179 are authentic. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates the publication of the decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates the updated EU Ecolabel criteria validity periods into the EEA Agreement. This means that businesses operating within the EEA must adhere to the extended validity periods for EU Ecolabel criteria as defined in Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3179 when assessing and verifying environmental performance.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 104/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1367]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning transport regulations. The decision incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1663 on initial trajectory information sharing in Common Project One into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the EEA countries align with the EU’s regulations regarding air traffic management and the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) project. The amendment aims to harmonize transport regulations within the European Economic Area.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It has a preamble outlining the legal basis and the need for the amendment, followed by four articles. Article 1 introduces the new point referencing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1663 into Annex XIII of the EEA Agreement. Article 2 stipulates that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of the Implementing Decision are authentic. Article 3 defines the entry into force date, and Article 4 mandates the publication of the Decision in the relevant sections of the Official Journal of the European Union. This decision adds a new regulation to the existing list in Annex XIII, ensuring the EEA countries follow the EU’s updated rules on air traffic management.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1663 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the rules and obligations outlined in the EU’s Implementing Decision now also apply to the EEA countries. Businesses and entities involved in air traffic management within the EEA need to be aware of and comply with the requirements for initial trajectory information sharing as detailed in Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1663.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 113/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1372]

This Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amends Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement, which concerns statistics. The Decision incorporates several Commission Delegated and Implementing Regulations into the EEA Agreement, ensuring that the statistical data collection and reporting requirements are consistent across the European Economic Area. These regulations cover various domains such as information and communication technologies, health, consumption, energy, and living conditions.

The Decision modifies Annex XXI of the EEA Agreement by adding references to new EU regulations. Specifically, it adds an indent to point 18qe regarding Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/167, and inserts new points (18qz to 18qze) after point 18qy, referencing Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2021/1223, (EU) 2022/2094, (EU) 2023/2527, (EU) 2023/2529 and Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/1898, (EU) 2024/297. These regulations specify technical items, data formats, quality reports, and variables for statistical surveys in areas like ICT usage, consumption, health, energy, and living conditions.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly amends Annex XXI of the EEA Agreement, incorporating the new EU regulations. This ensures that EEA member states align their statistical practices with the EU in the specified domains. Article 2 ensures that the texts of the incorporated regulations are authentic in Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 111/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1361]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex XX to the EEA Agreement. The amendment incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3098, which specifies the performance values for manufacturers of new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for 2023, into the EEA Agreement. This ensures that the EEA Agreement reflects the EU’s regulations on vehicle emissions.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** Amends Annex XX of the EEA Agreement by adding point 21azt, which references Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3098. This effectively integrates the EU decision into the EEA legal framework.
* **Article 2:** States that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3098, published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal, are authentic.
* **Article 3:** Sets the entry into force date as 9 May 2025, contingent upon the completion of all notifications required under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement.
* **Article 4:** Mandates the publication of the Decision in the EEA Section and the EEA Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Union.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3098 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the performance values specified in the EU decision for vehicle manufacturers are now also applicable within the EEA, ensuring consistent environmental standards across the European Economic Area.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 97/2025 of 8 May 2025 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1384]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, specifically concerning financial services. The Decision incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910 into the EEA Agreement. This regulation pertains to the form and content of information required for cross-border activities of Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and their management companies.

The Decision modifies Annex IX of the EEA Agreement by adding reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910 in point 30d, which concerns Commission Regulation (EU) No 584/2010, and by inserting a new point 30j to include the full reference to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910. It also states that the Icelandic and Norwegian language versions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910 will be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal and will be authentic. The Decision will enter into force on May 9, 2025, provided that all notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made.

The most important provision is the incorporation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/910 into the EEA Agreement, which harmonizes the reporting requirements for UCITS and their management companies operating across borders within the EEA. This ensures consistent standards for the information to be notified regarding cross-border activities, facilitating the exchange of information between competent authorities.