Review of the EU legislation for 11/09/2025

Legal Act Analysis

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1845

This regulation formalizes the registration of ‘Κρήτη / Kriti’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. Consequently, only products originating from Crete and meeting specific standards can use the name ‘Κρήτη / Kriti’ for marketing within the EU.

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1798

This regulation amends existing fishing quotas for 2025 by adding quantities withheld from 2024. The changes, detailed in an Annex, are crucial for Member States to effectively manage fishing activities and ensure compliance with established quotas. Importantly, carry-over provisions do not apply if Member States have already utilized the flexibility measures under Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1816

This regulation officially registers “Queso de Burgos” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU, granting it legal protection against imitation and misuse. A notable provision includes a three-year transitional period for certain companies outside the geographical area to continue using the name under specific conditions, balancing GI protection with existing producers’ interests.

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1795

This regulation authorizes riboflavin (vitamin B2) produced with *Bacillus subtilis* CGMCC 7.449, both as a substance and in a preparation, for use as a feed additive for all animal species. It details the additive’s composition, purity specifications, analytical methods, and mandates specific operational procedures for feed business operators to address potential user risks. The authorization is valid until September 29, 2035.

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1784

This regulation authorizes capsaicin as a sensory feed additive for all animal species. It specifies the maximum allowable content in feed—6.5 mg/kg for most species, 5.3 mg/kg for cats and others—and enforces safety measures to protect users from respiratory, skin, and eye irritation when handling the additive. This authorisation is valid until 30 September 2035.

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1782

This regulation authorises chromium chelate of DL-methionine as a zootechnical feed additive for salmonids to improve their performance. The regulation establishes the maximum content of the additive at between 200 and 600 mg/kg. The authorization is valid until 30 September 2035.

Analysis of Regulation (EU) 2025/1733

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2017/1938, extending gas storage filling requirements in the EU until 2027 while introducing flexibility. It allows deviation from the 90% target under certain conditions, requiring notification to the Commission. The changes also mandate monitoring of Russian gas stored in EU facilities. It extends the application of key articles related to gas storage filling requirements until December 31, 2027.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-175/22

The General Court partially annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Tigran Khudaverdyan on the EU’s sanctions list from September 2024. However, it dismisses his claims against earlier decisions. The court found the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Khudaverdyan on the sanctions list after he resigned from his position at Yandex.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-511/24, T-512/24 and T-517/24

The General Court dismissed actions brought by three associations against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/423, which registered the name “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” as a protected geographical indication (PGI). The court emphasizes that associations seeking to challenge EU regulations must demonstrate that the regulation directly affects the legal situation of their members or infringes upon their own specific interests.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/23

The General Court ruled on a dispute concerning rainwater damage to the Konrad Adenauer building extension insured by Nationale-Nederlanden. The court concluded that the insurance company failed to fulfill its obligations to investigate the incident, and ultimately sided with the insurance company’s interpretation excluding coverage for the damage.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-583/22

The General Court dismissed an action against the Commission’s decision to reject a request for internal review of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, relating to wind power’s contribution to environmental objectives. The Court found that none of the applicants’ pleas were successful.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-1189/23

The General Court annulled a decision by the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations that imposed a financial sanction on Patriotes.eu. The key finding was that the Authority incorrectly applied the legal basis for the sanction.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-326/23

The General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, finding that it failed to adequately explain its reasoning for dismissing the applicant’s arguments regarding the similarity between the contested mark and the earlier marks.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-707/23

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, finding a likelihood of confusion between EFFAS’s “CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst” and CFA Institute’s earlier EU word mark “CFA.” The judgment reinforces the principle that mere registration of a trade mark or its presence on the internet is not sufficient to prove peaceful coexistence.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/24

The General Court dismissed the action by Geos Atlas, concerning the tender process for a framework service contract for security services. The Court emphasized that tender documents should be clear, precise, and unambiguous.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-58/23

The General Court annulled the EUIPO’s decision and ordered EUIPO to accept the trade mark application. The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting previous court decisions.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-274/23

The General Court confirms that an entity established in a third country that has filed a reasoned statement of opposition is directly affected by the act registering the name, even if the opposition was unsuccessful. The judgment emphasizes that the economic consequences alone are not sufficient to establish direct concern and that the associations cannot rely on their status as “groupings” under Regulation No 1151/2012 to claim a right of action before the Court.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-184/23

This ruling emphasizes the EU’s right to impose sanctions on companies with ties to the Russian IT sector if they hold an FSB license. Even with no direct involvement in actions against Ukraine proven, the judgment confirms that the EU can sanction companies and holding companies, if their subsidary operates in the Russian IT sector and holds an FSB license.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-625/22

The judgment relates to the assessment of activities in the nuclear and fossil gas energy sector. The General Court upheld the Commision’s decision.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-435/23 and T-224/24

The General Court partially upheld YL’s claims, annulling the decision not to extend his term and a decision suspending his powers, and awarding him compensation. The court emphasizes the importance of providing any individual the right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-148/23

This ruling confirms that the Council must have provided enough justification for imposing sanctions. The judgment also highlights that the Council must conduct an updated assessment and consider changes in an individual’s circumstance when reviewing restrictive measures.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-383/23

In this judgment regarding a trade mark case the General Court emphasized the importance of demonstrating “peaceful coexistence” when arguing against a likelihood of confusion. To successfully argue this, a party must provide solid evidence that the relevant public can distinguish between the marks in question.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-597/23

The judgment establishes that the term “as used in trade” in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1151/2012 requires actual use of the name, without requiring a certain period of use. Also this act outlines that the IGPs in question did not constitute an “evocation” of the earlier PDOs within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 1151/2012.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-58/24

The most important aspects of this judgment are the methodology for calculating AMAR and the uniform interpretation of AMAR.
The judgment clarifies that the methodology for calculating the AMAR, which is crucial for determining supervisory fees under the DSA, must be established through a delegated act, ensuring greater scrutiny and transparency.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-164/23

The most important aspects of this judgment for understanding and applying the EU Taxonomy Regulation are clarification of “Conclusive Scientific Evidence”, balancing of requirements, life-cycle considerations and burden of proof.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-117/24

The judgment confirmed that the methodology for calculating the AMAR used by the EU must adhere to the procedural requirements of the DSA, including the use of delegated acts for establishing methodologies.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/24

The judgment clarifies that a decision from the Council requires a justification to deny a request for access to documents related to the work of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation).

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-764/23

The judgment clarifies the criteria for assessing the distinctive character of sound marks, emphasizing that a minimum degree of distinctiveness is sufficient for registration.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-130/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-40/24

The judgment provides clarity in the interpretation of the provisions concerning the descriptiveness of a trademark.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-83/23

The General Court found that the Parliament adequately considered VP’s observations and that the investigation was conducted in a fair manner.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-125/23

The judgment dismissed Yanukovych’s claims that the Council made an error of assessment.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-590/23

The Court found that the Board of Appeal had overestimated the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity, and had incorrectly identified “zara” as the dominant element in the “pastaZARA Sublime” mark.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-29/23

The court emphasizes that the Council bears the burden of proof to justify the restrictive measures and that the evidence must be concrete, precise, and consistent. The court also highlights the need for the Council to conduct an updated assessment of the situation and to consider changes in the individual’s circumstances when reviewing restrictive measures.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-670/22

The judgment emphasizes that the Court confirmed that an entity established in a third country that has filed a reasoned statement of opposition is directly affected by the act registering the name, even if the opposition was unsuccessful. The judgment also highlights that the right to good administration was not violated.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-684/23

The judgement reiterates that the mere existence of contracts awarded at amounts significantly less than the estimates cannot be taken, in themselves, as establishing the existence of collusion.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-337/24

The judgement emphasizes that exceptions to the right of access must be interpreted and applied strictly.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-282/23

The court assesses the factors used in assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-553/23

The most important aspect of this judgment is the General Court’s interpretation and application of the Regulation 2017/1001.

Analysis of Request for an Advisory Opinion by the EFTA Court

The most important aspect of this request lies in its potential implications for project authorizations that could affect groundwater bodies.

Analysis of Request for an Advisory Opinion by the EFTA Court regarding the interpretation of Article 38(3) of the GDPR

Analysis of EFTA Decision 1/2025

The judgment concerns the continuation of the designated Performance Review Body (PRB) of the single European sky for the EFTA States. It also addresses the establishment of the rules for internal cost sharing among Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway for the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2021-2028.

Analysis of EFTA Decision 2/2025

The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures the uninterrupted functioning of the Performance Review Body for EFTA States until June 2, 2025.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1845 of 4 September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Κρήτη / Kriti (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1845 officially registers the geographical indication (GI) ‘Κρήτη / Kriti’ (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications. This registration is based on the absence of opposition following Greece’s application. The legal basis for this regulation is Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for various products.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 formally registers the geographical indication ‘Κρήτη / Kriti’ (PGI). Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation is directly applicable in all Member States. The act repeals Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

The most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the name ‘Κρήτη / Kriti’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). This means that only products originating from the specified region in Crete and meeting specific production standards can be marketed under that name within the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1798 of 9 September 2025 adding to the 2025 fishing quotas certain quantities withheld in the year 2024 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1798 amends the 2025 fishing quotas by adding quantities withheld in 2024, following requests from Member States. This adjustment is based on Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96, which allows for a carry-over of up to 10% of unused quota from one year to the next under specific conditions. The regulation aims to optimize the use of available fishing opportunities while adhering to the principles of sustainable resource management.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the fishing quotas set for 2025 in Regulations (EU) 2024/2903, (EU) 2025/202 and (EU) 2025/219 are increased as detailed in the Annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force seven days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex lists the specific fish stocks, their zones, and the quantities transferred from 2024 to 2025 for each Member State.

The most important provision of this regulation is the Annex, which specifies the exact quantities of each fish stock that are added to the 2025 quotas for each Member State. This information is crucial for Member States to manage their fishing activities and ensure compliance with the established quotas. The regulation also emphasizes that carry-over of unused fishing quotas should not apply if a Member State has already used the year-to-year flexibility provided for under Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1816 of 4 September 2025 entering the geographical indication Queso de Burgos (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1816 officially registers “Queso de Burgos” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This means “Queso de Burgos” will receive legal protection against imitation and misuse within the EU. The regulation also grants a three-year transitional period for certain companies established outside the defined geographical area to continue using the name “Queso de Burgos,” provided they meet specific conditions.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the decision, followed by three articles. Article 1 formally enters “Queso de Burgos” into the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 lists the specific companies authorized to continue using the name “Queso de Burgos” during the transitional period. Article 3 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

The most important provision is Article 2, which grants a transitional period for specific companies to continue using the “Queso de Burgos” name even if they are located outside the designated geographical area. This is significant because it balances the protection of the geographical indication with the economic interests of existing producers who have been using the name legitimately.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1795 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of riboflavin (vitamin B2) produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449 and a preparation of riboflavin produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449, as feed additives for all animal species

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1795 authorises the use of riboflavin (vitamin B2) produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449 and a preparation of riboflavin produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449 as feed additives for all animal species. These additives are classified under ‘nutritional additives’ and ‘vitamins, pro-vitamins and chemically well-defined substances having similar effect’. The authorisation is based on the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) opinion, which concluded the additives are safe for animals, consumers, and the environment under the proposed conditions of use.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the substance and the preparation specified in the Annex are authorised as additives in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex. Article 2 indicates the entry into force of the regulation. The Annex specifies the identification number of the additive, its composition, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions. The regulation does not refer to previous versions.

Key provisions include the authorisation of riboflavin produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449 as a feed additive for all animal species, the specifications regarding its composition, purity, and the analytical methods for its determination in feed. It also sets an expiration date for the authorisation on 29 September 2035. The regulation mandates specific operational procedures and organisational measures for feed business operators to address potential risks to users of the additive, including the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated otherwise.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1784 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of capsaicin as a feed additive for all animal species

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1784 authorises the use of capsaicin as a sensory feed additive for all animal species. It classifies capsaicin under the category of ‘sensory additives’ and the functional group of ‘flavouring compounds’. The regulation establishes conditions for its use, including a maximum content in feed, and mandates protective measures for users to prevent health risks.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 sanctions the use of capsaicin as a feed additive under the conditions specified in the annex. Article 2 states that the regulation will take effect 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, chemical formula, description, analytical method, the animal species for which it is authorised, and the maximum content allowed. It also includes other provisions, such as the requirement for the additive to be incorporated into feed as a premixture, the need for storage conditions and stability to heat treatment to be indicated in the directions for use, and the establishment of operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks for users. The authorisation period ends on 30 September 2035.

The most important provisions for users include the maximum content of capsaicin allowed in animal feed, which is set at 6.5 mg/kg for most species and 5.3 mg/kg for cats and other species, and the obligation to implement safety measures to protect against respiratory, skin, and eye irritation when handling the additive.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1782 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of chromium chelate of DL-methionine as a feed additive for salmonids (holder of authorisation: Zinpro Animal Nutrition Europe, Inc.)

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1782 concerning the authorisation of chromium chelate of DL-methionine as a feed additive for salmonids.

The regulation authorises the use of chromium chelate of DL-methionine as a zootechnical feed additive for salmonids, specifically to improve their performance. It specifies the conditions of use, including the composition of the additive, the animal species for which it is authorised, and the maximum content allowed in the feed. The authorisation is granted to Zinpro Animal Nutrition Europe, Inc.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 authorises the preparation specified in the annex as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in the annex. Article 2 states that the regulation enters into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, the name of the holder of authorisation, the additive itself, its composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, the minimum and maximum content, other provisions, and the end of the period of authorisation.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* The additive is authorised for use in salmonids.
* The maximum content of the additive in complete feedingstuff is between 200 and 600 mg/kg.
* The regulation specifies the composition and characteristics of the additive, including the percentage of chromium chelate of DL-methionine, the presence of iron-colored microtracer, and the limits for impurities like nickel.
* The regulation requires feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks resulting from the use of the additive and premixtures. Where those risks cannot be eliminated by such procedures and measures, the additive and premixtures shall be used with personal breathing and skin protective equipment.
* The authorisation is valid until 30 September 2035.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1733 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 as regards the role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season

Here’s a breakdown of Regulation (EU) 2025/1733:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

Regulation (EU) 2025/1733 amends Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 to extend and adjust the rules regarding gas storage in the EU. It prolongs the obligation for Member States to maintain a certain filling level in their gas storage facilities until the end of 2027, while introducing more flexibility to adapt to market conditions. The regulation aims to balance energy security with market-based principles, allowing deviations from filling targets under specific circumstances. It also emphasizes monitoring the market and potentially using joint purchasing mechanisms to meet storage targets.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The Regulation amends several articles of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938. Key changes include:

* **Article 2:** Updates the definition of “filling trajectory” to mean a series of indicative intermediate targets for underground gas storage facilities of each Member State, representing the filling plan of that Member State, set in accordance with Article 6a(7).
* **Article 6a:** This article is significantly amended, clarifying the filling targets for Member States. It introduces flexibility, allowing Member States to deviate from the 90% filling target under specific conditions (difficult market conditions, technical issues, etc.). It also outlines the process for Member States to notify and justify deviations to the Commission.
* **Article 6b:** Specifies that measures taken by Member States to meet filling targets should be limited to what is necessary, proportionate, transparent, and non-discriminatory, avoiding undue distortion of competition or endangering the gas supply of other Member States.
* **Article 6c:** Concerns Member States without gas storage facilities. It modifies the requirements for these states to ensure arrangements are in place for the use of storage volumes in other Member States.
* **Article 6d:** Focuses on monitoring and enforcement. It tasks storage system operators with reporting filling levels and requires Member States to monitor and report filling levels to the Commission. It also empowers the Commission to involve ACER in monitoring.
* **Article 17a:** Adds a requirement to include information about the share of gas originating in Russia that is being stored in Union storage facilities, provided by Member States where available pursuant to Article 6d(2).
* **Article 18a:** Is deleted.
* **Article 22:** Extends the application of key articles related to gas storage filling requirements until December 31, 2027.
* **Annex Ib:** Replaces the previous annex, detailing shared responsibility for filling targets and trajectories between the Slovak Republic and Czechia concerning the Dolní Bojanovice storage facilities.

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

* **Flexibility in Meeting Targets:** The most important aspect is the introduction of flexibility. Member States can deviate from the filling target by up to 10 percentage points under difficult conditions. The Commission can also authorize further deviations in case of persistent unfavorable market conditions. This provides a safety valve for unexpected events.
* **Notification and Justification:** Member States using the flexibility to deviate from targets must immediately inform the Commission and provide justification. This ensures transparency and allows the Commission to monitor the overall impact on the EU’s security of supply.
* **Monitoring and Enforcement:** The Commission, assisted by the Gas Coordination Group (GCG), will actively monitor filling trajectories and targets. Member States are required to enforce storage obligations on market participants, including imposing deterrent sanctions for non-compliance.
* **Extension until 2027:** The extension of the gas storage filling requirements until the end of 2027 provides market participants with regulatory certainty for the medium term.
* **Russian Gas Monitoring:** The requirement to report, where available, the share of gas originating in Russia being stored in storage facilities adds a layer of transparency related to the source of stored gas.

Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Tigran Khudaverdyan 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 – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Obligation de motivation – Droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective – Notion de “femme ou homme d’affaires ayant une activité dans des secteurs économiques qui fournissent une source substantielle de revenus au gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g), du règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Exception d’illégalité – Erreur d’appréciation – Principe d’égalité de traitement et de non-discrimination – Proportionnalité – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-1116/23.

Here is a detailed description of the provisions of the act:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed on Tigran Khudaverdyan in connection with the situation in Ukraine. The court partially annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Khudaverdyan on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes and travel restrictions from September 2024, while dismissing his claims against earlier decisions from September 2023 and March 2024. The court also rejects Mr. Khudaverdyan’s claim for damages.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses Mr. Khudaverdyan’s challenge to the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions list, specifically concerning measures taken in response to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.

* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of the sanctions regime, including the initial listing of Mr. Khudaverdyan in March 2022 and subsequent decisions to prolong the measures. It also mentions amendments to the criteria for imposing sanctions.
* **Grounds for the Decision:** Mr. Khudaverdyan raised several arguments against the Council’s decisions, including:
* Illegality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions.
* Violation of his right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.
* Errors in the Council’s assessment of the facts.
* Violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* Violation of the principle of proportionality.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The court addresses each of Mr. Khudaverdyan’s arguments in detail.
* It rejects the claim that the criteria for imposing sanctions are illegal.
* It finds that the Council provided sufficient reasons for its decisions and did not violate Mr. Khudaverdyan’s rights of defense.
* However, the court agrees with Mr. Khudaverdyan that the Council made an error in its assessment of the facts regarding the decisions from September 2024. The court finds that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Khudaverdyan on the sanctions list after he resigned from his position at Yandex.
* The court rejects the claim that the sanctions violate the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* The court finds that the sanctions are proportionate.
* **Damages Claim:** The court rejects Mr. Khudaverdyan’s claim for damages, finding that he did not provide sufficient evidence of actual damage.
* **Ruling:** The court annuls the Council’s decisions from September 2024 insofar as they concern Mr. Khudaverdyan, but dismisses his claims against the earlier decisions and his claim for damages.

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

* **Criteria for Sanctions:** The judgment clarifies the interpretation of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, particularly the criteria related to “leading businesspersons” and individuals involved in sectors providing a “substantial source of revenue” to the Russian government.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the criteria for imposing sanctions are met.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial review of sanctions decisions and the need for the Council to provide a sufficiently solid factual basis for its decisions.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment confirms that sanctions must be proportionate to the objectives pursued and that the Council must take into account the individual circumstances of the person concerned.
* **Impact of Resignation:** The judgment highlights that the Council must reassess whether sanctions are still justified when a person resigns from a position that was the basis for the initial imposition of sanctions.
* **Evidence of Damage:** The judgment reiterates that a party seeking damages must provide concrete evidence of actual damage suffered.

: This act is related to Ukraine because it concerns restrictive measures taken by the EU in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Association pour la promotion du sel artisanal et Association des producteurs de sel marin de l’Ile de Ré contre Commission européenne.#Recours en annulation – Agriculture – Indications géographiques protégées – Enregistrement de la dénomination “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” – Association professionnelle – Qualité pour agir – Défaut d’affectation directe – Irrecevabilité.#Affaires T-191/24 et T-192/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the admissibility of actions for annulment brought by three associations against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/423, which registered the name “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” as a protected geographical indication (PGI). The court dismissed the actions as inadmissible because the applicant associations were not directly concerned by the regulation.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the creation and objectives of the applicant associations, the process leading to the registration of the contested PGI, and the legal basis for the actions. It then presents the arguments of the parties, with the applicant associations seeking annulment of the regulation and the Commission, supported by France, arguing for the dismissal of the actions. The court then proceeds to its legal analysis, examining whether the applicant associations are directly concerned by the regulation, as required for admissibility under Article 263(4) TFEU. It considers whether the regulation directly affects the legal situation of the associations’ members and whether the associations can claim an infringement of their own interests. Finally, the court rules on the allocation of costs.

The most important provision of this act is that the court emphasizes that associations seeking to challenge EU regulations must demonstrate that the regulation directly affects the legal situation of their members or infringes upon their own specific interests. The judgment clarifies that economic consequences alone are not sufficient to establish direct concern and that the associations cannot rely on their status as “groupings” under Regulation No 1151/2012 to claim a right of action before the Court. The court also notes that the possibility of using national procedures to protect the interests of the persons is not enough to justify the admissibility of the action for annulment.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Parlement européen contre Axa Assurances Luxembourg SA e.a.#Clause compromissoire – Contrat d’assurance “Tous risques chantier” – Extension et remise à niveau du bâtiment Konrad Adenauer à Luxembourg – Dégâts causés par des eaux pluviales – Demande de remboursement des frais et indemnisation – Champ d’application de l’assurance – Clause d’exclusion – Obligations procédurales accessoires – Procédure partiellement par défaut – Opposition.#Affaire T-384/19 OP.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between the European Parliament and several insurance companies, including Nationale-Nederlanden Schadeverzekering Maatschappij (Nationale-Nederlanden), concerning an insurance contract for the Konrad Adenauer building extension project in Luxembourg. The case revolves around damage caused by rainwater and whether this damage is covered under the “All Risks Construction” insurance policy. The court’s decision addresses the applicability of exclusion clauses, particularly one related to flooding, and the obligations of the insurance companies regarding the investigation of the incident.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction**: It outlines the context of the dispute, the parties involved, and the procedural history, including a prior default judgment against Nationale-Nederlanden and the subsequent opposition filed by them.
2. **Background of the Dispute**: This section details the events leading to the lawsuit, including the insurance contract, the rainwater damage, the expert assessments, and the insurance company’s refusal to cover the damages.
3. **Applicable Legislation and Relevant Provisions of the TRC Contract**: It cites relevant Luxembourgish laws and specific clauses of the “Tous Risques Chantier” (TRC) insurance contract, focusing on aspects like damage assessment, exclusions, and jurisdiction.
4. **Arguments of the Parties**: This part summarizes the claims and arguments made by both the Parliament and Nationale-Nederlanden.
5. **Legal Analysis**: The court examines the applicable rules for opposition proceedings, its own jurisdiction, and the merits of the case against Nationale-Nederlanden. The analysis focuses on the interpretation of the term “inondation” (flood) in the exclusion clause and whether the insurance company fulfilled its obligations to investigate the incident.
6. **Decision on Costs**: The judgment concludes with a ruling on who bears the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act are:
* The interpretation of the term “inondation” (flood) in the insurance contract and whether the rainwater damage falls under this exclusion. The court ultimately sides with the insurance company’s broader interpretation, excluding coverage for the damage.
* The obligations of the insurance company to investigate the incident, as outlined in the contract. The court finds that Nationale-Nederlanden failed to fulfill these obligations by prematurely halting the investigation.
* The assessment of damages and whether the Parliament provided sufficient evidence to justify the claimed amount. The court rejects the Parliament’s claim for full reimbursement of costs, finding a lack of direct causation between the interrupted investigation and the total damages.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025.Fédération environnement durable and Others v European Commission.Environment – Aarhus Convention – Rejection of a request for internal review – Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 – Electricity generation from wind power – Taxonomy – Requirements for technical screening criteria – Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 – Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation – Substantial contribution to climate change adaptation – No significant harm to other environmental objectives.Case T-583/22.

This is the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025 in Case T-583/22, Fédération environnement durable v European Commission. The case concerns the legality of the Commission’s decision to reject a request for internal review of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, which supplements Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the Taxonomy Regulation) by establishing technical screening criteria for determining when an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or adaptation, and for determining whether that activity causes no significant harm to other environmental objectives, specifically regarding electricity generation from wind power. The applicants argued that the Delegated Regulation did not adequately demonstrate that wind power contributes substantially to environmental objectives.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background to the dispute:** Describes the adoption of the Delegated Regulation and the applicants’ request for internal review.
2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the applicants’ request to annul the Commission’s decision and order the Commission to pay costs, and the Commission’s request to dismiss the action and order the applicants to pay costs.
3. **Law:** Presents the legal arguments and assessment.
4. **Preliminary considerations on Regulation 2020/852 and the Delegated Regulation:** Explains the purpose and scope of the Taxonomy Regulation and the Delegated Regulation, including the criteria for environmentally sustainable activities and the six environmental objectives.
5. **Preliminary considerations on the request for internal review and the scope of the Court’s review:** Discusses the requirements for a request for internal review under Regulation No 1367/2006 and the scope of judicial review.
6. **First plea: preparation of the Delegated Regulation:** Addresses the applicants’ arguments regarding the preparation of the Delegated Regulation, including alleged infringements of the Aarhus Convention, Regulation No 1367/2006, and Regulation 2020/852.
7. **Second plea: climate change mitigation:** Examines the applicants’ claims that the Delegated Regulation fails to adequately address climate change mitigation, particularly concerning the measurement of CO2 emissions from wind power and the intermittency of wind power generation.
8. **Third plea: climate change adaptation:** Considers the applicants’ arguments that the Commission failed to address points raised in the request for internal review regarding technical screening criteria for climate change adaptation.
9. **Fourth plea: principle of ‘do no significant harm’ to the other environmental objectives:** Assesses the applicants’ claims that the Delegated Regulation does not adequately ensure that wind power does no significant harm to other environmental objectives, such as water and marine resources, circular economy, pollution prevention, and biodiversity.
10. **Fifth plea: obligation to state reasons:** Addresses the applicants’ argument that the Commission failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.
11. **Alternative plea: illegality of the Delegated Regulation:** Examines the applicants’ alternative plea alleging the illegality of the Delegated Regulation under Article 277 TFEU.
12. **Conclusion:** States that the action is dismissed because none of the pleas put forward by the applicants can succeed.
13. **Costs:** Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

The main provisions of the act revolve around the General Court’s assessment of the Commission’s decision to reject the request for internal review. The Court examines each of the applicants’ pleas, addressing issues such as public participation, consultation with the Platform on Sustainable Finance, the measurement of CO2 emissions, the intermittency of wind power, and the impact on other environmental objectives. The Court ultimately finds that none of the applicants’ pleas are successful and dismisses the action.

The most important aspect of this judgment is the General Court’s interpretation and application of the EU Taxonomy Regulation and its delegated acts, specifically in the context of wind power. The Court clarifies the scope of the Commission’s discretion in establishing technical screening criteria and the requirements for demonstrating that an economic activity contributes substantially to environmental objectives and does no significant harm to other objectives. The judgment also addresses procedural aspects related to requests for internal review and the obligation to state reasons.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre élargie) du 10 septembre 2025.#Patriotes.eu, anciennement Identité et Démocratie Parti (ID Parti) contre Autorité pour les partis politiques européens et les fondations politiques européennes.#Droit institutionnel – Autorité pour les partis politiques européens et les fondations politiques européennes – Décision infligeant une sanction financière à un parti politique – Article 27, paragraphe 2, sous a), vi), du règlement (UE, Euratom) no 1141/2014 – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-1189/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of September 10, 2025, in Case T-1189/23, Patriotes.eu v. Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns a legal challenge by Patriotes.eu (formerly Identité et Démocratie Parti – ID Parti) against a decision by the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations imposing a financial sanction on the party. The sanction was based on the Authority’s finding that Patriotes.eu had intentionally provided incorrect information by maintaining inaccurate publications on social media. The General Court annulled the Authority’s decision, finding that the legal basis for the sanction was incorrectly applied. The court also rejected Patriotes.eu’s claim for damages.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **I. Background to the Dispute:** Describes the factual background, including the Authority’s decision to impose a financial sanction on Patriotes.eu for maintaining inaccurate information on social media regarding the composition of its bureau.
* **II. Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments and requests made by Patriotes.eu and the Authority, as well as the positions of the intervening parties (European Parliament, Council, and Commission).
* **III. Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and reasoning of the General Court. It addresses:

* The Court’s competence to rule on the claims.
* The substance of the case, including the claims for annulment and damages.
* The Court examines several pleas raised by Patriotes.eu, including violation of the duty to state reasons, violation of the right to be heard, illegality of Article 6 of Regulation No 1141/2014, violation of the principle of non-discrimination, and violation of the principle of proportionality.
* The Court focuses on the interpretation of Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, which allows the Authority to impose financial sanctions when a European political party intentionally provides incorrect or misleading information.
* The Court interprets this provision to apply only to situations where a political party intentionally provides incorrect information to the competent authorities, including the Authority, within the framework of their obligations under the Regulation.
* The Court finds that the Authority incorrectly applied Article 27(2)(a)(vi) because the sanction was based on the party’s maintenance of inaccurate information on social media, rather than the provision of incorrect information to the Authority.
* The Court rejects Patriotes.eu’s claim for damages, finding that the party failed to prove the existence and extent of the alleged damages.
* **Decision:** The Court annuls the Authority’s decision and orders each party to bear its own costs.

**Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**

* **Interpretation of Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014:** The Court’s interpretation of this provision is crucial. It clarifies that the Authority can only impose financial sanctions for the intentional provision of incorrect information to the Authority itself, not for inaccurate information disseminated to the public.
* **Burden of Proof for Damages:** The judgment reinforces the principle that a party seeking damages must provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence and extent of the alleged damages.
* **Annulment as Sufficient Remedy:** The judgment reiterates that the annulment of an illegal act can be a sufficient remedy for any moral prejudice suffered, unless the applicant demonstrates additional, irreparable harm.

Urteil des Gerichts (Zweite Kammer) vom 10. September 2025.#Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Nichtigkeitsverfahren – Unionsbildmarke GERMANY’S NEXT top kebab by Uncle Charlie – Absoluter Nichtigkeitsgrund – Bösgläubigkeit – Art. 59 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Begründungspflicht – Art. 94 Abs. 1 der Verordnung 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-522/24.

This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case concerning the validity of a European Union trademark. The core issue revolves around whether the trademark “GERMANY’S NEXT top kebab by Uncle Charlie” was registered in bad faith, potentially infringing on earlier trademarks owned by Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH, specifically related to the “GERMANY’S NEXT top model” brand. The court ultimately annuls the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, finding that it failed to adequately explain its reasoning for dismissing the applicant’s arguments regarding the similarity between the contested mark and the earlier marks.

The document is structured as a standard court judgment, beginning with the identification of the parties involved (the applicant Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH, the defendant EUIPO, and the intervener Alaattin Celik), followed by a summary of the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, the legal reasoning of the court, and the final decision. The court addresses two main pleas: (1) violation of the obligation to state reasons under Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, and (2) violation of Article 59(1)(b) of the same regulation concerning bad faith. The court upholds the first plea, finding that the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently explain why it dismissed the applicant’s argument regarding the quasi-identity of the conflicting signs.

The most important provision for practical use is the court’s emphasis on the requirement for the EUIPO to provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of its reasoning, especially when dealing with arguments concerning the similarity of trademarks and potential bad faith. This highlights the importance of a thorough examination and explanation of how the EUIPO assesses the overall impression of trademarks and the potential for creating an association with earlier marks.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2025.European Federation of Financial Analysts’Societies (EFFAS) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst – Earlier EU word mark CFA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Lack of peaceful coexistence.Case T-592/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The European Federation of Financial Analysts’ Societies (EFFAS) applied to register the word mark “CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst,” but the CFA Institute opposed it, citing their earlier EU word mark “CFA.” The court ultimately sided with the CFA Institute, finding a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses EFFAS’s appeal against the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision, which had also found a likelihood of confusion. The court examines whether the Board of Appeal was correct in its assessment, focusing on two main arguments raised by EFFAS:

1. **Peaceful Coexistence:** EFFAS argued that the two marks had coexisted peacefully in the market, suggesting no likelihood of confusion. The court rejected this, stating that EFFAS failed to provide sufficient evidence of such peaceful coexistence, particularly in the relevant markets of Germany and Spain. The court emphasized that evidence must demonstrate the public’s ability to distinguish the marks, which EFFAS did not sufficiently prove.
2. **Similarity of the Signs:** EFFAS disputed the Board of Appeal’s findings on the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. However, the court upheld its previous findings on this matter, stating that the signs were visually and phonetically similar to a high degree and not conceptually similar.

The court refers to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Regulation (EU) 2017/1001), which prohibits the registration of a trade mark if it is likely to cause confusion with an earlier trade mark. The judgment emphasizes that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must consider several factors, including the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods/services, and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The key takeaway from this judgment is the importance of demonstrating “peaceful coexistence” when arguing against a likelihood of confusion. To successfully argue this, a party must provide solid evidence that the relevant public can distinguish between the marks in question. This evidence should include:

* Proof of actual use of the contested mark in the relevant territory.
* Evidence that the public recognizes each of the trade marks at issue.
* Evidence that coexistence is based on the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

The judgment also reinforces the principle that mere registration of a trade mark or its presence on the internet is not sufficient to prove peaceful coexistence.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Geos Atlas ltd. contre EUCAP Somalia.#Marchés publics de services – Procédure d’appel d’offres – Prestations de services de sécurité – Rejet de l’offre d’un soumissionnaire – Critères de sélection – Transparence – Égalité de traitement – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Obligation de motivation.#Affaire T-300/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on September 10, 2025, in the case T-300/24, Geos Atlas ltd. v. EUCAP Somalia. The case concerns a public procurement procedure for security services, where Geos Atlas ltd. contested the rejection of its tender by EUCAP Somalia. The Court dismisses the action brought by Geos Atlas.

The judgment is structured as follows:
– **Background of the Dispute:** This section outlines the context of the case, including the call for tenders by EUCAP Somalia for a framework service contract for security services, the criteria for selecting tenderers (economic, professional, and technical capacity), and the specific requirements for professional capacity, such as licenses and permits.
– **Arguments of the Parties:** This section summarizes the arguments made by Geos Atlas, claiming a violation of transparency and equal treatment principles, an erroneous application of selection criteria, and the inadmissibility of subsequent justifications provided by EUCAP Somalia. It also presents EUCAP Somalia’s counter-arguments.
– **Legal Analysis:** The Court examines the competence of the Tribunal, the pleas for annulment, and the arguments related to transparency, equal treatment, and the application of selection criteria. It interprets the requirements of the tender documents, assesses whether EUCAP Somalia correctly applied the selection criteria, and considers whether the principle of equal treatment was violated.
– **Decision:** The Court rejects all arguments made by Geos Atlas and dismisses the action. Geos Atlas is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act are those related to the interpretation of the selection criteria in public procurement procedures. The Court emphasizes that tender documents should be clear, precise, and unambiguous, allowing all reasonably informed and diligent tenderers to understand their scope and interpret them in the same way. The Court also highlights that the contracting authority must adhere to the same interpretation of the criteria throughout the procedure and cannot modify them. The judgment confirms that the contracting authority has broad discretion in assessing the elements to be taken into consideration when deciding to award a contract following a call for tenders, and the Court’s review is limited to verifying compliance with procedural rules, the accuracy of the facts, and the absence of manifest errors of assessment.

Urteil des Gerichts (Achte Kammer) vom 10. September 2025.#Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung der Unionswortmarke LOOP – Absolute Eintragungshindernisse – Unterscheidungskraft – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Beschreibender Charakter – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. c der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Objektive Merkmale, die der Natur der Waren und Dienstleistungen innewohnen – Hinreichend direkter und konkreter Zusammenhang – Entscheidung, die ergangen ist, nachdem das Gericht eine frühere Entscheidung aufgehoben hatte – Rechtskraft – Art. 266 AEUV – Art. 72 Abs. 6 der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Abänderungsbefugnis des Gerichts.#Rechtssache T-497/24.

This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the trademark application for the word “LOOP” by Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The court annuls the decision of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) that rejected the trademark application based on the grounds that the word “LOOP” is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness for certain goods and services. The court also orders EUIPO to accept the trade mark application.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Background:** Telefónica applied for the “LOOP” trademark in 2019 for various goods and services in classes 6, 9, 10, 28, 38, and 42. The EUIPO initially rejected the application for some of these classes, arguing the term was descriptive and lacked distinctiveness.
* **Initial Decision:** The EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal rejected Telefónica’s appeal, maintaining that “LOOP” was descriptive and lacked distinctiveness.
* **First Appeal:** The General Court partially annulled the EUIPO’s decision, specifically for goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 38 and 42, in a previous judgment (T-132/21).
* **EUIPO’s New Examination:** Following the General Court’s partial annulment, the EUIPO re-examined the application but again rejected it for specific goods and services within classes 9, 38, and 42.
* **Decision Contested:** Telefónica appealed again, leading to the current judgment.
* **Arguments of Telefónica:** Telefónica argued that the EUIPO violated the authority of the previous judgment, erred in assessing the descriptiveness of “LOOP,” and that the term has sufficient distinctiveness.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The General Court agreed with Telefónica, stating that the EUIPO did not comply with the previous judgment’s findings, particularly regarding the descriptiveness of “LOOP” for goods in Class 9. The court also found that the EUIPO incorrectly assessed the descriptiveness of “LOOP” for services in Classes 38 and 42.
* **Ruling:** The General Court annuls the EUIPO’s decision and orders the EUIPO to pay Telefónica’s costs, including those incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Authority of Res Judicata (Chose Jugée):** The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting previous court decisions. The EUIPO must comply not only with the ruling itself but also with the reasoning behind it.
* **Descriptiveness Assessment:** A term is descriptive if the relevant public immediately and without further thought perceives it as a description of the goods or services. The court found that the EUIPO erred in concluding that “LOOP” was directly descriptive of the goods and services in question.
* **Distinctiveness:** A trademark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The court found that “LOOP” had a minimum degree of distinctiveness and should not have been rejected on those grounds.
* **Power of Reformation:** The General Court can change the EUIPO’s decision if it finds that the EUIPO made an error and the court can determine what decision the EUIPO should have made.
* **Burden of Proof:** The EUIPO bears the burden of proving that a trademark should be rejected on absolute grounds such as descriptiveness or lack of distinctiveness.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Comptoir Sel Solaire contre Commission européenne.#Agriculture – Indications géographiques protégées – Procédure d’opposition – Enregistrement de la dénomination “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” – Article 52, paragraphe 3, sous b), du règlement (UE) no 1151/2012 – Principe de bonne administration.#Affaire T-190/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the registration of the name “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). The court dismisses the action brought by Comptoir Sel Solaire, a Guinean salt producer, against the European Commission’s decision to register the name. The applicant argued that the registration was illegal and violated several regulations.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including the applicant’s activities, the registration process of the PGI, and the opposition filed by the applicant.
2. **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Comptoir Sel Solaire (the applicant), the European Commission (the defendant), and the French Republic (intervener supporting the Commission).
3. **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Admissibility:** The Court first examines whether the action is admissible, considering whether the applicant is directly affected by the regulation.
* **Substance:** The Court then addresses the four pleas raised by the applicant, each alleging a different violation of EU law.

The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable here, as this is a judgment, not a legislative act. The court examines the pleas raised by the applicant, which include:
* Illegality of using the term “fleur de sel” in the PGI.
* Unfair competition and misleading nature of the PGI.
* Violation of the right to good administration.

The most important provisions for its use are the Court’s findings on the admissibility of the action and the analysis of the pleas raised by the applicant. The Court confirms that an entity established in a third country that has filed a reasoned statement of opposition is directly affected by the act registering the name, even if the opposition was unsuccessful. The Court rejects all the pleas raised by the applicant, finding that the registration of the PGI “Sel de Camargue/Fleur de sel de Camargue” is legal and does not violate EU law.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025.Positive Group PAO v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Definition of ‘entities operating in the Russian IT sector with a license administered by the FSB’ – Article 2(1)(i) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Plea of illegality – Error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence.Case T-573/23.

Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment regarding Positive Group PAO and the EU’s restrictive measures concerning Ukraine.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This judgment concerns Positive Group PAO’s challenge to a series of Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations that placed the company under restrictive measures (asset freeze) for allegedly undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The EU Council imposed these measures because Positive Group PAO was deemed to be operating in the Russian IT sector with a license administered by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB). The court ultimately dismissed Positive Group PAO’s action, upholding the EU’s sanctions.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses Positive Group PAO’s appeal against the Council’s decisions to include and maintain its name on the EU’s sanctions list. The structure of the judgment is as follows:

* **Background:** Sets the context of the case within the EU’s restrictive measures concerning Ukraine and the specific criteria for sanctions related to the Russian IT sector.
* **Arguments:**
* Admissibility of the intervention by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
* Legality of the criterion used to impose sanctions (Article 2(1)(i) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014).
* Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.
* Manifest errors of assessment by the Council.
* Infringement of the rights of the defence.
* **Court’s Analysis:** The court systematically addresses each of Positive Group PAO’s arguments, examining the legal basis, evidence, and proportionality of the EU’s actions.
* **Decision:** The court dismisses Positive Group PAO’s action, finding no grounds to annul the Council’s decisions.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

* The core of the case revolves around **criterion (i)**, which allows the EU to impose sanctions on “legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT-sector with a license administered by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB).”
* The judgment clarifies the scope of this criterion, particularly the definition of “entities” and the level of connection required between the sanctioned entity and actions undermining Ukraine.
* The Council modified the grounds for listing the applicant. The initial ground was that Positive Group PJSC holds a license administered by the FSB. The modified ground was that Positive Group PJSC is the holding company of a conglomerate that includes AO Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz, which operates in the Russian IT sector and holds a license administered by the FSB Centre for Licensing, Certification, and Protection of State Secrets.

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

* **Interpretation of “Operating in the Russian IT Sector”:** The judgment confirms that the EU can sanction companies with ties to the Russian IT sector if they hold an FSB license, even if their direct involvement in actions against Ukraine is not explicitly proven.
* **Definition of “Entities”:** The court clarifies that the term “entities” can extend to groups of companies, including parent companies and subsidiaries, if there is a sufficient degree of control or ownership. This means a holding company can be sanctioned if its subsidiary operates in the Russian IT sector and holds an FSB license.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the sanctioned entity meets the listing criteria. However, it also acknowledges the difficulties in obtaining evidence in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, allowing the Council to rely on publicly available information and intelligence reports.
* **Proportionality:** The court emphasizes that the EU has broad discretion in defining the criteria for restrictive measures. The measures are deemed proportionate as long as they are appropriate for achieving the legitimate objectives and do not go beyond what is necessary.
* **Rights of Defence:** The judgment clarifies the extent of the Council’s obligation to disclose evidence to the sanctioned party. While the Council must provide access to the evidence it relies upon, it is not required to disclose all information or engage in extensive discussions before adopting or maintaining sanctions.

Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Republic of Austria v European Commission.Environment – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 – Taxonomy – Economic activities in the fossil gas and nuclear energy sectors – Inclusion in sustainable economic activities – Investments – Contribution to the transition towards a carbon-neutral economy in accordance with the 1.5 °C objective fixed by the Paris Agreement – Objective of net zero emissions by 2050 – Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation – Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 – Concept of ‘low-carbon activity’ – Significant harm to environmental objectives – Risks associated with serious reactor accidents – Risks associated with high-level radioactive waste – Risks associated with droughts and climate hazards – Precautionary principle – Technical screening criteria – Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – Article 290 TFEU – Concept of ‘essential elements’ of a legislative act – Scientific evidence – Commission’s margin of discretion – Manifest error of assessment.Case T-625/22.

This is the Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) in Case T-625/22, where the Republic of Austria, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, sought the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214. This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 regarding economic activities in certain energy sectors (nuclear and fossil gas) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 regarding specific public disclosures for those economic activities, specifically concerning their inclusion as sustainable economic activities within the EU Taxonomy Regulation. The court ultimately dismissed the action.

The judgment is structured around the pleas raised by Austria against the Delegated Regulation. These pleas are divided into two main categories: those concerning economic activities in the nuclear energy sector and those concerning economic activities in the fossil gas sector. For each sector, the court examines procedural and substantive issues, including alleged breaches of the Taxonomy Regulation, the European Climate Law, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and general principles of EU law such as the precautionary principle and the principle of technological neutrality. The court also considers arguments related to the essential elements of a legislative act, scientific evidence, and the Commission’s margin of discretion.

Several provisions of the Taxonomy Regulation are central to the judgment, including Articles 10 (climate change mitigation), 11 (climate change adaptation), 17 (do no significant harm – DNSH), and 19 (technical screening criteria). The court assesses whether the Commission correctly applied these provisions when establishing technical screening criteria for including nuclear and fossil gas activities as environmentally sustainable. Key issues include the interpretation of “low-carbon alternatives,” the assessment of GHG emissions, the consideration of life-cycle assessments, and the management of risks associated with nuclear energy (reactor accidents, radioactive waste) and fossil gas (methane emissions). The court also addresses procedural concerns related to impact assessments, public consultations, and the involvement of expert groups. **** This act has implications for Ukraine, as it defines the conditions under which investments in nuclear and fossil gas energy sectors can be considered sustainable, which may affect energy projects and policies in Ukraine, especially considering the country’s energy transition goals and its reliance on nuclear energy.

Judgment of the General Court (Intermediate Chamber) of 10 September 2025.YL v Council of the European Union and European Union Intellectual Property Office.Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Decision of the Management Board of EUIPO not to submit to the Council a proposal for extension of the applicant’s term of office – Decision of the Council not to extend the applicant’s term of office – Right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Liability.Case T-435/23.

This judgment concerns two joined cases (T-435/23 and T-224/24) brought by YL, a former Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), against decisions related to the non-extension of his term of office. YL contested decisions by the EUIPO Management Board and the Council of the European Union, seeking their annulment and compensation for damages. The General Court partially upheld YL’s claims, annulling the decision not to extend his term and a decision suspending his powers, and awarding him compensation.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background of the dispute, including YL’s initial appointment, the process regarding the extension of his term, and the subsequent decisions taken by the EUIPO Management Board and the Council. It then outlines the forms of order sought by YL, followed by the legal basis for the actions, addressing the applicability of Article 270 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and the Staff Regulations. The judgment proceeds to analyze the observance of the pre-litigation procedure, the claims for annulment, and the claims for compensation. It examines the legality of various decisions, including Decision MB-22-19 (non-proposal of extension), Decisions MB-22-20 and MB-22-21 (selection procedure), and Decision MB-23-04 (suspending delegation of powers). Finally, it addresses the claims for compensation for both material and non-material harm.

Several provisions are particularly important. The court annuls the Council’s decision not to extend YL’s term, citing a breach of his right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The court also annuls Decision MB-23-04, finding that the suspension of YL’s powers was not justified by “exceptional circumstances” as required by Article 4 of Decision MB-17-01 and Article 153(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The court awards YL EUR 25,000 in compensation for the loss of opportunity due to the illegal non-extension of his term, plus default interest. The court dismisses the remaining claims, including those related to material harm and certain aspects of non-material harm, as well as claims against other decisions by the EUIPO Management Board.

Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich 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 – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques et faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur la liste – Notion de “femmes et hommes d’affaires influents exerçant des activités en Russie” – Notion de “femmes et hommes d’affaires ayant une activité dans des secteurs économiques qui fournissent une source substantielle de revenus au gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g), du règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Exception d’illégalité – Obligation de motivation – Droits de la défense – Erreur d’appréciation – Proportionnalité – Citoyenneté de l’Union – Droit de propriété – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-1105/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding restrictive measures against Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich in the context of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. The court addresses the legality of maintaining Mr. Abramovich’s name on the EU’s sanctions list, specifically concerning the freezing of funds and travel restrictions.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** It outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures concerning Ukraine, the initial listing of Mr. Abramovich, and subsequent decisions to maintain his name on the list. It also details the modification of the listing criteria.
2. **Claims:** Mr. Abramovich seeks the annulment of the Council’s decisions prolonging the restrictive measures against him and compensation for damages allegedly suffered due to these measures.
3. **Arguments:** The judgment addresses six pleas raised by Mr. Abramovich, including the illegality of the modified listing criteria, violation of fundamental rights, errors of assessment, insufficient reasoning, violation of the principle of proportionality, and violation of the right to be heard.
4. **Court’s Analysis:** The court systematically examines each of Mr. Abramovich’s arguments, upholding the Council’s decisions and rejecting his claims. The court finds that the Council did not commit errors of assessment, adequately justified its decisions, and respected Mr. Abramovich’s fundamental rights.
5. **Decision:** The court dismisses Mr. Abramovich’s action in its entirety.

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

* **Article 277 TFUE:** This article allows parties to challenge the validity of general acts that form the legal basis of an act they are contesting.
* **Article 2, paragraph 1, point (g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3, paragraph 1, point (g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014:** These provisions define the criteria for listing individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures, particularly concerning influential businesspersons operating in Russia or those active in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian government.
* **Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:** This article guarantees the right to an effective judicial remedy, requiring that individuals be able to understand the reasons for decisions taken against them and to defend their interests.
* **Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:** This article outlines the conditions under which limitations can be placed on the rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter, including that such limitations must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights, pursue a legitimate objective, and be proportionate.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Vinatis v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark VINATIS – Earlier Benelux word mark VINITES – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Admissibility of new evidence – Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Cross-claim before the General Court.Case T-86/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between Vinatis SAS and Vinites BV regarding the registration of the EU trade mark VINATIS. Vinatis SAS applied to register the mark, but Vinites BV opposed, citing its earlier Benelux mark VINITES. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal partially upheld the opposition, finding that Vinites BV had genuinely used its earlier mark for certain services. Vinatis SAS then challenged this decision before the General Court.

The General Court’s judgment is structured around two main actions: the main action brought by Vinatis SAS seeking to annul the Board of Appeal’s decision, and a cross-claim by Vinites BV seeking to broaden the scope of the Board of Appeal’s finding of genuine use. The court first addresses the admissibility of new evidence presented by both parties, ultimately rejecting evidence submitted for the first time before the Court. It then examines Vinatis SAS’s claims that the Board of Appeal failed to adequately state its reasons and incorrectly assessed the genuine use of the VINITES mark for “import services” and certain services in Class 41. Finally, the court rejects Vinites BV’s cross-claim, finding that the evidence presented to support genuine use for “export services” was inadmissible.

The most important provisions of this act are those concerning the admissibility of new evidence before the General Court and the assessment of genuine use of a trade mark. The Court reaffirms that it will not consider evidence that was not presented before the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal. It also clarifies the criteria for assessing genuine use, particularly in the context of free services and the relationship between a company name and a trade mark. The court emphasized that genuine use must aim to create or maintain an outlet for the services on the market, and that the use of a sign as a company name does not preclude its use as a trade mark if a link is established between the sign and the services provided.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#VP contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Membres du Parlement – Harcèlement moral – Décision du Parlement concluant à l’existence d’un harcèlement moral de la part du requérant à l’égard d’une assistante parlementaire accréditée – Obligation de motivation – Droits de la défense – Principe de bonne administration – Notion de “harcèlement” – Article 12 bis du statut – Erreur d’appréciation.#Affaire T-83/23.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-83/23, VP v European Parliament, issued on September 10, 2025.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns a legal challenge by VP, a former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), against the Parliament’s decision finding him guilty of psychological harassment of his parliamentary assistant. The General Court dismisses VP’s appeal, upholding the Parliament’s decision. The Court examines whether the Parliament violated VP’s rights of defense, the principle of good administration, and whether it correctly applied the Staff Regulations concerning harassment.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the harassment complaint, the investigation by the Parliament’s advisory committee, and the Parliament’s final decision.
* It then presents the arguments made by VP (the applicant) and the European Parliament (the defendant).
* The Court proceeds to analyze VP’s claims, dividing them into three main pleas: violation of the rights of defense and the right to good administration; violation of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations (definition of harassment); and manifest errors of assessment, violation of the obligation to state reasons, and breach of the duty of care.
* The Court systematically addresses each of these pleas, ultimately rejecting all of them and dismissing VP’s appeal.

**Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**

* **Rights of Defense:** The Court considers whether VP’s rights of defense were violated because he was not given access to the full investigation file, including the minutes of witness hearings. The Court acknowledges that the right to be heard and the right to access the file are fundamental rights. However, it also recognizes that confidentiality may be necessary in harassment cases to protect witnesses. The Court finds that VP was provided with a non-confidential summary of the witness testimony, and that the Parliament’s failure to disclose the full minutes did not prejudice VP’s ability to defend himself.
* **Principle of Good Administration:** The Court examines whether the Parliament conducted the investigation with impartiality and objectivity. VP argued that the Parliament ignored his observations and the testimony of a witness who supported his version of events. The Court finds that the Parliament adequately considered VP’s observations and that the investigation was conducted in a fair manner.
* **Definition of Harassment:** The Court analyzes whether the Parliament correctly applied the definition of psychological harassment under Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations. The Court emphasizes that harassment requires a pattern of abusive conduct that is both intentional and has the effect of undermining a person’s dignity or psychological well-being. The Court concludes that the Parliament correctly found that VP’s conduct met this definition.
* **Errors of Assessment:** The Court examines whether the Parliament made any manifest errors in assessing the evidence. VP challenged the Parliament’s findings on a number of specific incidents, including his alleged excessive demands on his assistant’s time, his failure to respect her leave, and his assignment of inappropriate tasks. The Court upholds the Parliament’s assessment of the evidence, finding that VP’s conduct was indeed excessive and constituted harassment.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The Court finds that the Parliament provided an adequate explanation for its decision, including the specific evidence on which it relied.
* **Duty of Care:** The Court finds that VP failed to provide any specific arguments in support of his claim that the Parliament breached its duty of care towards him.

In conclusion, the General Court’s judgment provides important clarification on the application of the Staff Regulations concerning harassment and the procedural rights of individuals accused of harassment within the European Parliament.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and subject to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Error of assessment.Case T-642/22.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, the son of the former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. The court addresses the legality of the Council’s decisions to include and maintain Mr. Yanukovych on the EU’s sanctions list, which involves freezing his funds and restricting his entry into Member States. The judgment focuses on whether the Council made an error in assessing that Mr. Yanukovych met the criteria for being sanctioned.

The structure of the judgment involves an examination of the factual background, the legal framework for the sanctions, and the arguments presented by Mr. Yanukovych against the Council’s decisions. The court assesses the evidence provided by the Council to justify the sanctions, focusing on whether Mr. Yanukovych supported actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity or conducted transactions with separatist groups in the Donbas region. The judgment also considers whether the Council’s decisions were based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and whether the reasons for maintaining the sanctions remained valid over time.

: The most important provision of the act is the assessment of the evidence and justification for maintaining sanctions against Mr. Yanukovych. The court emphasizes that the Council must provide specific, precise, and consistent evidence to support the sanctions. The judgment also highlights that the Council can rely on evidence predating the sanctions if it demonstrates a continuing link between the person’s actions and the threats to Ukraine’s integrity. The court ultimately concludes that the Council did not err in its assessment and dismisses Mr. Yanukovych’s action, upholding the sanctions against him.

Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#République hellénique contre Commission européenne.#FEAGA et Feader – Suppression d’un concours financier – Interventions relevant de la section “Orientation” du FEOGA – Base juridique – Règlement (UE) no 1306/2013 – Application ratione temporis – Application ratione materiae – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Dispositions transitoires.#Affaire T-18/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of the European Union regarding a dispute between the Hellenic Republic (Greece) and the European Commission concerning the financial consequences applied to Greece for irregularities in expenditures financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), “Guidance Section.”

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses Greece’s appeal against the Commission’s decision to exclude certain expenditures from EU funding due to irregularities in the management of funds from the EAGGF Guidance Section during the programming periods of 1994-1999 and 2000-2006. The core issue revolves around whether the Commission correctly applied EU regulations concerning the recovery of unduly paid funds and whether Greece demonstrated sufficient diligence in addressing these irregularities. The court ultimately dismisses Greece’s appeal, upholding the Commission’s decision.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Introduction:** Identifies the parties, the subject matter of the dispute, and the request for annulment of the Commission’s decision.
* **Background:** Details the factual background of the case, including the Commission’s investigation into irregularities reported by Greek authorities, the exchange of letters between the Commission and Greece, and the Commission’s decision to impose financial consequences.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments presented by Greece (the applicant) and the Commission (the defendant).
* **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court addresses the legal issues raised by Greece. The court examines the admissibility of certain arguments, the alleged lack of legal basis for the Commission’s decision, and the claim that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment.
* **Decision:** The court dismisses Greece’s appeal.
* **Costs:** The court orders each party to bear its own costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The judgment focuses on the following key provisions:

* **Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013:** This regulation concerns the financing, management, and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The court examines whether the Commission correctly applied this regulation to “old” irregularities related to the EAGGF Guidance Section.
* **Regulation (EC) No 1681/94:** This regulation concerns irregularities and the recovery of sums unduly paid in connection with the financing of structural policies. The court assesses whether the Commission correctly applied this regulation, considering its repeal and the transitional provisions.
* **Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88:** This regulation contains provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 regarding coordination between the interventions of different structural funds. The court considers whether the Commission correctly referred to this regulation, even though it has been repealed.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

* **Application of Regulation 1306/2013 to Old Irregularities:** The court confirms that Regulation 1306/2013 can be applied to financial corrections regarding expenditures from the EAGGF Guidance Section, even though that fund no longer exists. This is based on the idea that the EAGGF Guidance Section’s expenses were assimilated to expenses of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) under the new regulations.
* **Use of Repealed Regulations:** The court clarifies that the Commission can rely on the substantive rules contained in repealed regulations (such as Regulation 1681/94 and Regulation 4253/88) to assess the legality of past actions, as long as those rules were in force at the time the relevant events occurred.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment highlights that Member States have a general obligation to diligently manage EU funds and recover unduly paid amounts. If the Commission alleges a lack of diligence, the Member State must provide evidence to the contrary.
* **Formal Errors:** The court reiterates that purely formal errors in the legal basis of a decision do not necessarily lead to its annulment, especially if the error does not affect the substance of the decision or prevent the Member State from understanding its obligations.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#DM et DN contre Mission d’assistance de l’Union européenne pour une gestion intégrée des frontières en Libye (EUBAM Libya).#Responsabilité non contractuelle – Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Compétence du juge de l’Union – Mission d’assistance de l’Union européenne pour une gestion intégrée des frontières en Libye – Personnel de sécurité privée engagé par une société tierce pour la protection des membres de la mission – Lien de causalité.#Affaire T-198/24.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the EU Tribunal regarding a claim for damages against the European Union Border Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya). The case concerns two security personnel, DM and DN, who were hired by a third-party company to protect members of the mission and were later arrested and detained in Libya. The applicants sought compensation for damages allegedly suffered due to the mission’s unlawful conduct. The Tribunal dismissed the action, finding that the applicants had not established a sufficient causal link between the alleged misconduct of EUBAM Libya and the damages they claimed to have suffered.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **I. Background to the dispute:** This section outlines the facts of the case, including the establishment of EUBAM Libya, its mission, and the contractual arrangements for private security services.
* **II. Conclusions of the parties:** This section summarizes the claims made by DM and DN, as well as the counter-arguments presented by EUBAM Libya.
* **III. Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Tribunal. It addresses the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the request for procedural organization measures, and the claims for compensation.
* **A. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:** The Tribunal affirms its jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting EUBAM Libya’s argument that the matter falls under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), where the Court of Justice of the European Union has limited jurisdiction. The Tribunal also clarifies that the case concerns non-contractual liability, as there is no direct contractual relationship between the applicants and EUBAM Libya.
* **B. Request for procedural organization measures:** The Tribunal rejects the applicants’ request for additional measures, considering that it has already obtained sufficient information through written questions to the parties.
* **C. Claims for compensation:** The Tribunal examines whether the conditions for establishing non-contractual liability of the Union are met. It focuses on the existence of a causal link between the alleged misconduct of EUBAM Libya and the damages claimed by the applicants.
* The Tribunal finds that the applicants have not sufficiently established the reasons for their arrest and detention. Even if the alleged reasons (lack of valid visas, lack of authorization for radio communication equipment, and lack of licenses to carry weapons) were the basis for the arrest, the applicants did not prove that these allegations were true.
* The Tribunal also considers the possibility of other causes for the arrest and detention, such as arbitrary actions by the militia or politically motivated actions.
* The Tribunal concludes that the applicants have not established a sufficiently direct causal link between the alleged misconduct of EUBAM Libya and the damages they claim to have suffered.
* **IV. Costs:** The Tribunal orders DM and DN to pay the costs of the proceedings, as they have lost the case.

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

* The clarification of the **jurisdiction of the EU Tribunal** in cases related to the CFSP. The Tribunal confirms that it has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning administrative acts related to the management of personnel, even if they occur within the context of a CFSP mission.
* The detailed analysis of the **causal link** required to establish non-contractual liability of the Union. The Tribunal emphasizes that the damage must result sufficiently directly from the unlawful conduct of the institution and that the applicant bears the burden of proving this link.
* The importance of **establishing the facts** underlying a claim for damages. In this case, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not sufficiently established the reasons for their arrest and detention, which undermined their claim for compensation.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Syndicat de défense et de promotion des charcuteries corses AOP « Salameria de Corsica » contre Commission européenne.#Agriculture – Indications géographiques protégées – Enregistrement des dénominations “Pancetta de l’Île de Beauté/Panzetta de l’Île de Beauté”, “Saucisson sec de l’Île de Beauté/Salciccia de l’Île de Beauté”, “Bulagna de l’Île de Beauté” et “Figatelli de l’Île de Beauté/Figatellu de l’Île de Beauté” – Appellations d’origine protégées antérieures “Lonzo de Corse”/“Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu”, “Jambon sec de Corse”/“Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu” et “Coppa de Corse”/“Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica” – Éligibilité des dénominations – Évocation – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous a), et article 13, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) no 1151/2012 – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-597/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2025 in Case T-597/23, concerning the registration of certain geographical indications for Corsican charcuterie. The Syndicat de défense et de promotion des charcuteries corses AOP “Salameria de Corsica” brought an action against the European Commission seeking the annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1546, which registered the names “Pancetta de l’Île de Beauté/Panzetta de l’Île de Beauté”, “Saucisson sec de l’Île de Beauté/Salciccia de l’Île de Beauté”, “Bulagna de l’Île de Beauté” and “Figatelli de l’Île de Beauté/Figatellu de l’Île de Beauté” as protected geographical indications (IGPs). The Consortium des Charcutiers Corses intervened in support of the Commission. The General Court dismissed the action.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
– Background to the dispute, outlining the prior registrations of protected designations of origin (PDOs) for “Lonzo de Corse”, “Jambon sec de Corse”, and “Coppa de Corse”, the subsequent applications for IGPs using “Île de Beauté”, and the related legal proceedings.
– The pleas in law, where the applicant raised three pleas in law: violation of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1151/2012 due to the lack of prior use of the names requested, violation of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1151/2012 in conjunction with Article 10(1)(c) and Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation due to the evocation of the earlier PDOs, and violation of the general principle of equal treatment due to the different treatment of the various IGPs bearing the mention “Île de Beauté”.
– The Court’s assessment, where the Court rejected all three pleas in law and dismissed the action.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
– The Court held that the term “as used in trade” in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1151/2012 requires actual use of the name, without requiring a certain period of use.
– The Court found that the IGPs in question did not constitute an “evocation” of the earlier PDOs within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 1151/2012.
– The Court held that the different outcome of the registration applications did not constitute unjustified discrimination because the situations relating to those registration applications were not comparable.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025.Tiktok Technology Ltd v European Commission.Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Commission decision determining the amount of the supervisory fee for 2023 – Article 43(3) to (5) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Article 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1127 – Method for calculating the number of average monthly active recipients – Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment.Case T-58/24.

This is an analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025 in Case T-58/24, TikTok Technology Ltd v European Commission.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns TikTok’s challenge to the Commission’s decision on the supervisory fee imposed on it as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). TikTok contested the method used to calculate the fee, specifically the estimation of average monthly active recipients (AMAR). The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that the methodology for calculating the AMAR should have been established in a delegated act, not an implementing act. However, the court maintained the effects of the decision for up to 12 months to allow the Commission to rectify the procedural defect.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including TikTok’s status as a VLOP and the relevant provisions of the DSA and Delegated Regulation 2023/1127 concerning supervisory fees.
* It then details the forms of order sought by TikTok and the Commission.
* The core of the judgment addresses TikTok’s five pleas, focusing primarily on the first plea, which alleges an infringement of Article 43(5)(b) of the DSA and the illegality of Article 4(2) of Delegated Regulation 2023/1127. This plea is further divided into several parts, challenging the use of a common methodology for calculating AMAR and the legal basis for it.
* The Court finds in favor of TikTok on the grounds that the Commission should have adopted a delegated act to lay down the detailed methodology for calculating the AMAR, as it is an essential element for determining the supervisory fee.
* Despite annulling the Commission’s decision, the Court maintains its effects for a limited period to avoid disrupting the DSA’s supervisory fee regime.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs, ordering the Commission to pay.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

1. **Methodology for Calculating AMAR:** The judgment clarifies that the methodology for calculating the AMAR, which is crucial for determining supervisory fees under the DSA, must be established through a delegated act, ensuring greater scrutiny and transparency.
2. **Uniform Interpretation of AMAR:** The Court emphasizes that the concept of AMAR should be understood and applied uniformly across the DSA, regardless of the specific context (e.g., designation as a VLOP or determination of supervisory fees).
3. **Temporal Adjustment of Annulment:** The decision to maintain the effects of the annulled decision for up to 12 months provides legal certainty and allows the Commission time to rectify the procedural defect without disrupting the DSA’s implementation.
4. **Commission’s Discretion:** While the Commission has some discretion in choosing data sources for calculating AMAR, it must adhere to the procedural requirements of the DSA, including the use of delegated acts for establishing methodologies.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025.ClientEarth AISBL v European Commission.Environment – Aarhus Convention – Rejection of a request for internal review – Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 – Bioenergy activities – Forest biomass – Manufacture of organic base chemicals – Manufacture of plastics in primary form – Taxonomy – Requirements for technical screening criteria – Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 – Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation – Article 10 of Regulation 2020/852 – Transitional activities – Quantitative threshold – Conclusive scientific evidence – Life cycle – Precautionary principle – Principle of ‘do no significant harm’ to environmental objectives – Article 17 of Regulation 2020/852 – Circular economy – Water and marine resources – Pollution.Case T-579/22.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a challenge to the European Commission’s decision concerning the EU Taxonomy Regulation. The case was brought by ClientEarth, an environmental organization, against the Commission, with the French Republic intervening in support of the Commission. The court ultimately dismissed ClientEarth’s action.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses ClientEarth’s challenge to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, which supplements Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the Taxonomy Regulation). The Taxonomy Regulation establishes a framework to determine whether an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable. The Delegated Regulation sets out technical screening criteria for determining when an activity contributes substantially to climate change mitigation or adaptation and does no significant harm to other environmental objectives.

ClientEarth’s challenge focused on aspects of the Delegated Regulation related to bioenergy, the manufacture of organic base chemicals, and the manufacture of plastics in primary form. ClientEarth argued that the Commission made errors in interpreting the Taxonomy Regulation’s requirements for technical screening criteria, particularly concerning “conclusive scientific evidence,” balancing competing requirements, relying on existing EU legislation, and considering the life cycle of products.

The court systematically addresses each of ClientEarth’s arguments, structured into four main pleas:

* **Plea 1:** Errors of law regarding the requirements for technical screening criteria under Article 19 of the Taxonomy Regulation.
* **Plea 2:** Manifest errors of assessment concerning bioenergy activities.
* **Plea 3:** Manifest errors of assessment concerning the manufacture of organic base chemicals.
* **Plea 4:** Manifest errors of assessment concerning the manufacture of plastics in primary form.

Within each plea, the court examines specific limbs or sub-arguments raised by ClientEarth. The court’s analysis involves interpreting the relevant provisions of the Taxonomy Regulation and the Delegated Regulation, as well as assessing whether the Commission’s decisions were based on materially incorrect facts, manifest errors of assessment, or misuse of powers.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

The judgment clarifies the interpretation and application of several key provisions of the Taxonomy Regulation, including:

* **Article 19(1)(f):** The requirement for technical screening criteria to be based on “conclusive scientific evidence” and the precautionary principle. The court found that the Commission’s interpretation of “conclusive scientific evidence” as scientific evidence that allows conclusions to be reached was acceptable.
* **Article 19(1):** The court affirmed that the Commission has the authority to balance the various requirements set out in Article 19(1) when establishing technical screening criteria.
* **Article 19(1)(d):** The court confirmed that the Commission is required to take into account any relevant existing Union legislation when establishing technical screening criteria.
* **Article 19(1)(g):** The requirement to take into account the life cycle of products and services. The court clarified that this provision does not require the Commission to carry out a life-cycle assessment in all cases, but rather to consider the life cycle when adopting technical screening criteria.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment for understanding and applying the EU Taxonomy Regulation are:

* **Clarification of “Conclusive Scientific Evidence”:** The court’s interpretation provides guidance on the level of scientific certainty required for establishing technical screening criteria.
* **Balancing of Requirements:** The judgment confirms the Commission’s discretion to balance competing requirements when setting technical screening criteria, which is important for understanding the flexibility in the application of the Taxonomy Regulation.
* **Life-Cycle Considerations:** The court’s interpretation of Article 19(1)(g) clarifies the extent to which life-cycle assessments must be incorporated into technical screening criteria.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment highlights the high burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment when establishing technical screening criteria.

In essence, the court upheld the Commission’s approach to implementing the EU Taxonomy Regulation, providing clarity on the interpretation of key provisions and affirming the Commission’s discretion in setting technical screening criteria.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025.Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd v European Commission.Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Commission decision determining the amount of the supervisory fee for 2023 – Article 43(3) to (5) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Article 4(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1127 – Method for calculating the number of average monthly active recipients – Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment.Case T-55/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd and the European Commission concerning the supervisory fee imposed on Facebook and Instagram under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Meta is challenging the Commission’s decision on the amount of the supervisory fee for 2023, arguing that the methodology used to calculate the fee is flawed and unlawful. The court ultimately annuls the Commission’s decision, finding that the methodology used to calculate the average monthly active recipients (AMAR) was improperly established through an implementing act rather than a delegated act as required by the DSA.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the case and the parties involved. It then provides the background to the dispute, detailing the relevant articles of the DSA and related regulations, as well as the specific decisions made by the Commission regarding Meta’s platforms. The judgment then presents the forms of order sought by both Meta and the Commission. The main body of the judgment consists of a legal analysis, where the court examines Meta’s pleas in law, focusing primarily on the argument that the Commission’s methodology for calculating the AMAR is erroneous and unlawful. Finally, the court addresses the Commission’s request to maintain the effects of the contested decision in case of annulment and rules on the allocation of costs.

The most important provision of the judgment is the court’s finding that the Commission erred in establishing the methodology for calculating the AMAR through an implementing act (the contested decision) rather than a delegated act. The court emphasizes that while the DSA allows the Commission to use various sources of information to determine the AMAR, it requires that the detailed methodology for calculating the AMAR be laid down in a delegated act, which involves a more rigorous procedure including consultation with experts and potential objections from the European Parliament and the Council. The court concludes that by circumventing this procedure, the Commission infringed the DSA. However, the court also decided to maintain the effects of the decision for a maximum of 12 months to allow the Commission to remedy the defects found.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Martijn Frederik Nouwen v Council of the European Union.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning the work of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) established by the Council – Partial refusal of access – Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or of a Member State – General presumption of confidentiality – Obligation to state reasons.Case T-255/24.

This is the Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2025 in Case T-255/24, Martijn Frederik Nouwen v Council of the European Union. The case concerns the applicant’s request for access to documents related to the work of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) established by the Council, specifically concerning the revision of a code of conduct in the field of business taxation. The Council partially refused access to these documents, citing exceptions related to the protection of public interest regarding international relations and the financial, monetary, or economic policy of the Union or a Member State. The applicant sought the annulment of the Council’s decision.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background to the dispute and events subsequent to the initiation of the action, followed by the forms of order sought by the parties. The main body of the judgment addresses the applicant’s pleas in law, which include arguments about the incomplete implementation of the request for access, an unjustified refusal to grant access, and the failure to grant partial access to the documents. The court examines whether the Council correctly applied Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents, specifically Article 4(1)(a) concerning exceptions to access. The judgment concludes with a ruling on the action and a decision on costs.

The key provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation and application of Regulation No 1049/2001, particularly the exceptions to public access to documents. The court assesses whether the Council adequately justified its refusal to grant full or partial access to the requested documents, considering the need to protect international relations and the financial, monetary, or economic policy of the Union or its Member States. The judgment also addresses the issue of whether a general presumption of confidentiality should apply to the documents in question. The court ultimately annuls the Council’s decision in part, finding that the Council should have granted access to certain documents and should have allowed broader partial access to others.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a sound of a melody – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-288/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for an EU trade mark for a sound. Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) applied to register a melody as a trade mark for transport services, but the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) refused the registration because they considered the melody lacked distinctive character. The General Court annulled EUIPO’s decision, finding that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed the melody’s distinctiveness.

The structure of the judgment includes:

* **Background:** BVG applied for a sound mark for transport services, which EUIPO rejected.
* **Decision Contested:** The decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejecting BVG’s appeal.
* **Arguments:** BVG argued that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed the mark’s characteristics, while EUIPO maintained the mark lacked distinctive character.
* **Legal Framework:** The Court refers to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which states that trademarks lacking distinctive character should not be registered. It also cites previous case law on assessing the distinctiveness of a trademark.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The Court found that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment. It noted that the transport sector increasingly uses jingles to create a recognizable sound identity. The Court also pointed out that the melody did not have a direct link to the services and appeared to be an original work. The Court compared the sound mark to other registered sound marks and EUIPO guidelines, finding similarities.
* **Decision:** The Court annulled the EUIPO’s decision and ordered EUIPO to pay the costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment are:

* **Distinctive Character:** The judgment clarifies the criteria for assessing the distinctive character of sound marks, emphasizing that a minimum degree of distinctiveness is sufficient for registration.
* **Customs of the Sector:** The judgment highlights the importance of considering the customs of the relevant economic sector when assessing distinctiveness. In the transport sector, jingles are commonly used to create a sound identity.
* **Functional Role:** The judgment states that even if a sound mark has a functional role, it can still perform its function of indicating the commercial origin of the service.
* **EUIPO Practice:** The judgment refers to EUIPO’s decision-making practice and examination guidelines, indicating that these can be used as a reference for assessing trademarks.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2025.La Superquímica, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Monta – Earlier national figurative mark MONTACK – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-371/24.

This judgment by the General Court addresses a dispute over an EU trade mark application. Monta Klebebandwerk GmbH sought to register the word mark “Monta,” but La Superquímica, SA opposed it, citing their earlier Spanish figurative mark “MONTACK.” The court ultimately sided with Monta Klebebandwerk GmbH, finding no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. This decision hinged on the court’s assessment of the similarity of the goods and the signs, as well as a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the trade mark applications, opposition proceedings, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal. It then details the forms of order sought by the parties. The core of the judgment is the “Law” section, where the court analyzes the applicant’s plea of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. This analysis includes a review of the relevant public, a comparison of the goods and the signs (including their distinctive and dominant elements, visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities), the distinctive character of the earlier mark, and a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs.

The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the comparison of the goods and the signs, and the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The court’s analysis of these factors is crucial in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, which is the key issue in trade mark opposition proceedings. The court’s emphasis on the conceptual differences between the signs, and the fact that the relevant public would understand the mark applied for as a reference to the Spanish verb “montar”, was decisive in the final decision.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Montres Tudor SA contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque verbale 1926 – Motif absolu de refus – Caractère descriptif – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b) et c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-444/24.

This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union (sixth chamber) regarding the trademark dispute between Montres Tudor SA and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The court dismisses Montres Tudor SA’s appeal against EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of the verbal trademark “1926” for goods in Class 14, including watches and jewelry.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the history of the dispute, starting with Montres Tudor SA’s application for international registration designating the EU for the verbal trademark “1926” for goods in Class 14. The EUIPO examiner partially rejected the application based on Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, citing descriptiveness and lack of distinctiveness. The Second Board of Appeal upheld this rejection.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments presented by Montres Tudor SA, seeking annulment of the EUIPO’s decision, and the EUIPO, defending its decision.
* **Legal Analysis:** The Court addresses two pleas raised by Montres Tudor SA:
* Violation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 (descriptiveness): The Court finds that the mark “1926” can be perceived as referring to the year of design or the founding year of the company, thus conveying information about the characteristics of the goods. It concludes that the mark is descriptive and falls under the prohibition of Article 7(1)(c).
* Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctiveness): The Court, having already established the mark’s descriptiveness, finds it unnecessary to examine the distinctiveness plea, as one ground for refusal is sufficient.
* **Prior Registrations:** Montres Tudor SA argued that similar marks had been registered by EUIPO. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that each case must be examined individually and that prior decisions do not bind the court.
* **Costs:** The Court orders Montres Tudor SA to bear the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provision is the interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the descriptiveness of a trademark. The Court’s judgment confirms that a mark consisting of a year can be considered descriptive if it directly and immediately conveys information about the characteristics of the goods, such as the year of design or the company’s founding year. This can be significant for companies seeking to register trademarks that include numerical elements, especially those related to dates.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and subject to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Error of assessment.Case T-643/22.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding restrictive measures imposed on Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, the former President of Ukraine. Yanukovych challenged the Council’s decisions and regulations that included and maintained his name on the list of individuals subject to sanctions for actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The court dismissed Yanukovych’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions to impose and maintain the restrictive measures against him.

The judgment addresses Yanukovych’s challenge to several Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations from 2022 to 2024. These acts froze his funds and imposed restrictions on his entry into EU member states. The court examines the evidence presented by the Council to justify these measures, focusing on whether Yanukovych’s actions supported or implemented policies that threatened Ukraine’s integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The court assesses the reliability and credibility of the evidence, including press articles and official documents, and considers whether the Council made an error in its assessment.

The court’s decision rests on the finding that the Council had a sufficiently solid factual basis to include and maintain Yanukovych’s name on the sanctions list. The court found that the Council was justified in its assessment that Yanukovych contributed to the destabilization of Ukraine through actions such as requesting military intervention by Russia, supporting pro-Russian politicians in Crimea, and voluntarily reducing Ukraine’s defense capacity. The court also considered his involvement in a Russian operation aimed at replacing the Ukrainian President. The court concludes that these actions provided sufficient grounds for the Council’s decisions, dismissing Yanukovych’s claims that the Council made an error of assessment. ****

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2025 (Extracts).Ffauf Italia SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark pastaZARA Sublime – Earlier EU word mark ZARA – Relative ground for refusal – No injury to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – No link between the signs – No risk of unfair advantage being taken of the mark with a reputation – Existence of due cause for the use of the mark applied for.Case T-425/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between Ffauf Italia SpA, an Italian pasta maker, and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Zara), a Spanish clothing company, over an EU trade mark. Ffauf Italia sought to register the figurative mark “pastaZARA Sublime” for pasta products, but Zara opposed, citing its earlier EU word mark “ZARA” and arguing that the pasta mark would unfairly benefit from Zara’s reputation. The General Court ultimately annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had sided with Zara.

The core of the judgment revolves around Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94, which protects trade marks with a reputation. The court examined whether the “pastaZARA Sublime” mark could be registered, considering if it was similar to the “ZARA” mark, if “ZARA” had a reputation, and if using “pastaZARA Sublime” would unfairly exploit or harm the “ZARA” mark’s distinctiveness or reputation. The court meticulously assessed the evidence presented by Zara to prove the reputation of its mark, including rankings, press articles, and annual reports.

The General Court disagreed with the Board of Appeal’s assessment of similarity between the marks. It found that the Board of Appeal had overestimated the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity, and had incorrectly identified “zara” as the dominant element in the “pastaZARA Sublime” mark. The court also found that the Board of Appeal had erred in concluding that the relevant public would likely establish a link between the marks, considering the dissimilarity of the goods (pasta vs. clothing) and the lack of evidence supporting the likelihood of association in 2008. Furthermore, the court determined that Ffauf Italia had demonstrated “due cause” for using “pastaZARA” based on its long-standing use of similar marks and the connection to its historical origins.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2025.Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Article 2(1)(f) and (g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(f) and (g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Error of assessment.Case T-541/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding restrictive measures against Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, a Russian national, in connection with the situation in Ukraine. The court annuls the Council’s decisions and implementing regulations that maintained Mr. Pumpyanskiy’s name on the list of individuals subject to fund-freezing measures. The court found that the Council made an error in its assessment of the facts, failing to provide sufficient evidence to justify keeping Mr. Pumpyanskiy on the list under the specified criteria.

The structure of the judgment includes: background to the dispute, forms of order sought, application for joinder and claims for annulment. The court addresses the claims for annulment, focusing on the plea of error of assessment. It examines whether the Council had a sufficiently solid factual basis for maintaining Mr. Pumpyanskiy’s name on the list, considering both the “amended (g) criterion” (leading businesspersons operating in Russia or involved in sectors providing revenue to the Russian government) and the “(f) criterion” (supporting the Russian government). The court analyzes the evidence presented by the Council, including press articles and company register information, and finds it insufficient to justify the restrictive measures.

The most important provision of the act is the court’s decision to annul the Council’s acts concerning Mr. Pumpyanskiy due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The court emphasizes that the Council bears the burden of proof to justify the restrictive measures and that the evidence must be concrete, precise, and consistent. The court also highlights the need for the Council to conduct an updated assessment of the situation and to consider changes in the individual’s circumstances when reviewing restrictive measures.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Montres Tudor SA contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque verbale 1926 – Motif absolu de refus – Caractère descriptif – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b) et c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-444/24.

This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the trademark dispute between Montres Tudor SA and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the application for registration of the word mark “1926” as a European Union trademark for goods in Class 14, namely watches, jewelry and bijouterie.

The structure of the judgment includes a summary of the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the Court. The Court dismisses Montres Tudor SA’s appeal against the EUIPO’s decision to reject the trademark application. The Court finds that the mark “1926” is descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 because it can be understood as referring to the year of design or creation of the goods, or to the year of establishment of the company producing them. The Court also finds that the mark lacks distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation because it does not allow consumers to identify the commercial origin of the goods.

The most important provision of the judgment is the Court’s interpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of descriptive trademarks. The Court’s finding that the mark “1926” is descriptive because it can be understood as referring to the year of design or creation of the goods has implications for the registrability of other trademarks consisting of or containing numbers. The judgment suggests that such marks may be considered descriptive if they are likely to be understood by consumers as referring to a characteristic of the goods or services in question.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Smart Kid S.A. contre Commission européenne.#Accès aux documents – Règlement (CE) no 1049/2001 – Documents relatifs à des échanges entre la Commission et les autorités japonaises faisant référence au produit du requérant – Refus partiel d’accès – Exception relative à la protection de l’intérêt public en matière de relations internationales – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation.#Affaire T-337/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2025 in Case T-337/24, Smart Kid S.A. v European Commission, concerning access to documents. The case revolves around the Commission’s partial refusal to grant access to documents related to exchanges between the Commission and Japanese authorities, specifically referencing the “Smart Kid Belt” product manufactured by the applicant. The refusal was based on the exception for the protection of public interest regarding international relations, as per Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

The structure of the judgment includes a summary of the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the Court. The Court annuls the Commission’s decision in part, specifically regarding the refusal to disclose “document 2” based on the protection of international relations. The Court found that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the disclosure of document 2 would undermine the public interest concerning international relations. The Court rejected the remainder of the application.

The key provisions of the judgment are those concerning the interpretation and application of Regulation No 1049/2001 on access to documents, particularly Article 4(1)(a) concerning exceptions to access based on the protection of public interest. The Court emphasized that exceptions to the right of access must be interpreted and applied strictly. It also clarified that while the Commission must consult with third parties (like Japan in this case) before disclosing documents originating from them, the final assessment of whether disclosure would harm international relations rests with the Commission. The Commission cannot simply accept a third party’s opposition without conducting its own analysis.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2025.JSherwood sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark JSherWood wear it with pride – Earlier EU word marks SHER-WOOD and SHER-WOOD SL and earlier EU figurative mark SHERWOOD – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity between products – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-448/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court partially annulled a decision by the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) Board of Appeal concerning the registration of the figurative mark “JSherWood wear it with pride”. The case revolves around an opposition filed by INA International Ltd, based on their earlier “SHER-WOOD” trade marks, arguing that the applicant’s mark would likely cause confusion.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark application, the opposition, and the EUIPO’s decisions.
* It then addresses the admissibility of new evidence presented by the applicant.
* The core of the judgment assesses the applicant’s plea for annulment, which alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation) concerning the likelihood of confusion.
* The court examines the relevant public, the similarity of goods and services, the comparison of the signs, and the overall likelihood of confusion.
* Finally, the court addresses the applicant’s request to alter the contested decision and rules on the allocation of costs.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

* The court agreed with the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the relevant public as consisting of both the general public and professionals, with varying levels of attention.
* The court overturned the Board of Appeal’s finding of similarity for specific goods: “trousers for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire” (Class 9), “garments for protecting clothing,” “paper hats [clothing],” and “baby bibs [not of paper]” and “plastic baby bibs” (Class 25). The court found these goods dissimilar to those covered by the earlier marks.
* The court upheld the Board of Appeal’s findings regarding the similarity of other goods and services, as well as the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks.
* The court concluded that a likelihood of confusion existed for most of the contested goods and services, except for those specifically identified as dissimilar.
* The court partially altered the Board of Appeal’s decision, rejecting the opposition for the goods it found dissimilar.

**Most Important Provisions:**

The most important provisions of this act are the following:

* **The assessment of similarity between goods and services:** The court’s detailed analysis of the nature, intended purpose, method of use, and distribution channels of the goods and services is crucial for understanding how likelihood of confusion is assessed.
* **The comparison of the signs:** The court’s emphasis on the overall impression given by the signs, considering their distinctive and dominant components, is key to determining visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity.
* **The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion:** The court’s consideration of all relevant factors, including the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and the goods/services, the level of attention of the relevant public, and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the likelihood of confusion.
* **The court’s decision to partially alter the Board of Appeal’s decision:** This demonstrates the court’s power to substitute its own reasoning in specific cases where it can determine the correct outcome based on the established facts and law.

Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale LOPEZ DE HEREDIA – Article 58, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Usage sérieux de la marque – Nature et importance de l’usage – Preuve de l’usage sérieux.#Affaire T-516/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding an application for annulment of a decision of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) concerning the cancellation of the EU trademark “LOPEZ DE HEREDIA.” Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU requested the cancellation of the trademark because it claimed that R. López de Heredia Viña Tondonia, SA had not made genuine use of the mark for a continuous period of five years. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal rejected Vintae’s appeal, stating that the evidence provided by R. López de Heredia Viña Tondonia, SA was sufficient to prove genuine use of the trademark. The General Court dismissed Vintae’s action and upheld the EUIPO’s decision, finding that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment of the evidence.

The structure of the judgment includes:
* **Introduction:** Outlines the purpose of the action, which is the annulment of the EUIPO’s decision.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Details the timeline of events, including the trademark application, registration, request for cancellation, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Vintae (the applicant), the EUIPO (the defendant), and R. López de Heredia Viña Tondonia, SA (the intervener).
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the General Court. It addresses the single plea raised by Vintae, which is the violation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, arguing that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed the genuine use of the trademark. The Court examines whether the trademark was used in the course of trade, whether it was used in the form in which it was registered, whether it was used for the goods for which it was registered, and the extent of the use of the trademark.
* **Costs:** Specifies which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.

The main provisions of the act are:

* **Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article states that a trademark can be revoked if it has not been genuinely used in the Union for a continuous period of five years, and there is no valid reason for non-use.
* **Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article states that genuine use of a trademark also includes use of the trademark in a form that differs in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are:

* The judgment clarifies the criteria for assessing genuine use of a trademark, including the nature, extent, and purpose of the use.
* It confirms that use of a trademark as part of a company name can constitute genuine use if the trademark is used to identify the origin of the goods.
* It clarifies that the use of a trademark in a form that differs in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered is also considered genuine use.
* It confirms that the assessment of genuine use must be based on all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the goods, the characteristics of the market, and the extent and frequency of the use of the trademark.

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Reykjavik District Court dated 15 April 2025 in the case of Ólafur Þór Jónsson and others v The National Energy Authority of Iceland and Benchmark Genetics Iceland hf. (Case E-7/25)

This is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court regarding the interpretation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The Reykjavik District Court is seeking clarification on whether a project that could potentially impact a groundwater body can be authorized before a status assessment of that body has been conducted and the results included in a river basin management plan. The core question is whether the absence of a completed assessment and its inclusion in the plan prohibits project authorization, regardless of whether an assessment has been done.

The document itself is a concise statement of the request. It identifies the requesting court (Reykjavik District Court), the parties involved in the case (Ólafur Þór Jónsson and others v The National Energy Authority of Iceland and Benchmark Genetics hf.), and the specific question posed to the EFTA Court. The question centers on Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, which deals with environmental objectives for water bodies. There are no structural divisions or changes to previous versions in this document, as it is simply a formal request for an opinion.

The most important aspect of this request lies in its potential implications for project authorizations that could affect groundwater bodies. If the EFTA Court rules that a project cannot be authorized until a status assessment is completed and included in the river basin management plan, it could significantly impact development projects across the European Economic Area (EEA). This interpretation would place a strong emphasis on proactive environmental assessment and planning before any potentially harmful activities are permitted.

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court in the case of Rainer Silbernagl v Universität Liechtenstein (Case E-5/25)

This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court in Liechtenstein regarding the interpretation of Article 38(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of national data protection law. The case concerns a dispute between Rainer Silbernagl and the University of Liechtenstein regarding the dismissal of Mr. Silbernagl from his position as Data Protection Officer. The Princely Supreme Court seeks clarification on the extent to which the GDPR protects data protection officers from dismissal and the consequences of unlawful dismissal.

The document consists of a brief introduction outlining the request for an advisory opinion and then presents three specific questions for the EFTA Court to address.

The main provisions of the request are the three questions posed to the EFTA Court:

1. The first question concerns the interpretation of Article 38(3) GDPR in relation to national provisions allowing dismissal of a data protection officer for just cause, even if they are not performing their function correctly. The question asks whether the GDPR precludes such national provisions.
2. The second question focuses on the German wording of Article 38(3) GDPR and asks whether the term “dismissed” includes an ordinary termination of the employment contract, which effectively prevents the data protection officer from performing their duties.
3. The third question asks whether the protective purpose of Article 38(3) GDPR requires that a dismissal contrary to the GDPR and corresponding national rules should be considered void, thus maintaining the employment relationship.

The most important aspect of this document is the set of questions it poses to the EFTA Court. The answers to these questions will have significant implications for the interpretation and application of the GDPR, particularly concerning the protection and independence of data protection officers within organizations. The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion will clarify the extent to which national laws can regulate the dismissal of data protection officers and the legal consequences of unlawful dismissal.

Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No. 3/2025/SC of 7 May 2025 on internal cost sharing [2025/1873]

This Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States establishes the rules for internal cost sharing among Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway for the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2021-2028. It defines how the contributions of these EFTA states will be determined and divided into annual tranches. The decision ensures that the financial obligations of these states are maintained even if one of them joins the EU. The Decision also provides for a possible review of the cost-sharing mechanism for financial contributions after 2028.

The Decision is structured into 5 articles. Article 1 outlines that the contributions of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway to the EEA Financial Mechanism for 2021–2028 will be divided into annual tranches and determined based on Article 2. Article 2 details the conditions for these contributions, specifying that they are based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each state. It further explains how the GDP data from two years prior (t-2) will be used to calculate each state’s share of the overall GDP of the EFTA States. Article 3 clarifies that if an EFTA State joins the EU, it must still fulfill its contribution obligations to the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2021–2028. Articles 4 and 5 concern the publication and entry into force of the decision, respectively. The decision replaces the previous cost-sharing mechanism outlined in the Annex to Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2016/SC of 28 April 2016, specifically noting a change from Gross National Income (GNI) to GDP as the basis for calculation.

The most important provisions for practical use are found in Article 2. This article specifies that contributions are based on GDP data from two years prior (t-2) and delivered annually by each EFTA State. This ensures a clear and predictable method for calculating each state’s financial contribution to the EEA Financial Mechanism. The provision in Article 3 is also important, as it ensures continued financial support for the EEA Financial Mechanism even if an EFTA state joins the EU during the specified period.

Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No. 2/2025/SC of 6 February 2025 on the continuation of the designated Performance Review Body of the single European sky for the EFTA States [2025/1872]

This Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States (No. 2/2025/SC) concerns the continuation of the designated Performance Review Body (PRB) of the single European sky for the EFTA States. It extends the mandate of the existing PRB, which was initially designated by Decision No. 1/2021/SC, to continue its functions until June 2, 2025. The Decision ensures the continuation of independent oversight and expertise in the performance of air navigation services within the single European sky framework, specifically concerning EFTA states. Liechtenstein is excluded from the application of this decision.

The Decision is structured into five articles. Article 1 stipulates the continuation of the PRB’s functions as previously defined. Article 2 allows the EFTA Surveillance Authority to consult the PRB on matters related to air navigation services. Article 3 clarifies that the Decision does not apply to Liechtenstein. Articles 4 and 5 concern the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union and specify its entry into force and period of application, respectively. This Decision prolongs the application of Decision No. 1/2021/SC, ensuring continuity in the oversight of air navigation services performance.

The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures the uninterrupted functioning of the Performance Review Body for EFTA States until June 2, 2025. This is crucial for maintaining consistent evaluation and advisory services related to the performance of air navigation services within the single European sky. The advisory role outlined in Article 2 is also significant, as it allows the EFTA Surveillance Authority to leverage the PRB’s expertise in ensuring optimal performance in air navigation services.

Review of the EU legislation for 11/09/2025

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1845

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1798

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1816

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1795

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1784

Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1782

Analysis of Regulation (EU) 2025/1733

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-175/22

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-511/24, T-512/24 and T-517/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-583/22

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-1189/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-326/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-707/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-58/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-274/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-184/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-625/22

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-435/23 and T-224/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-148/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-383/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-597/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-58/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-164/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-117/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-764/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-130/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-40/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-83/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-125/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-590/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-29/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-670/22

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-684/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-337/24

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-282/23

Analysis of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-553/23

Analysis of Request for an Advisory Opinion by the EFTA Court

Analysis of Request for an Advisory Opinion by the EFTA Court regarding the interpretation of Article 38(3) of the GDPR

Analysis of EFTA Decision 1/2025

Analysis of EFTA Decision 2/2025

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1845 of 4 September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Κρήτη / Kriti (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1798 of 9 September 2025 adding to the 2025 fishing quotas certain quantities withheld in the year 2024 pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1816 of 4 September 2025 entering the geographical indication Queso de Burgos (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1795 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of riboflavin (vitamin B2) produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449 and a preparation of riboflavin produced with Bacillus subtilis CGMCC 7.449, as feed additives for all animal species

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1784 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of capsaicin as a feed additive for all animal species

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1782 of 9 September 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of chromium chelate of DL-methionine as a feed additive for salmonids (holder of authorisation: Zinpro Animal Nutrition Europe, Inc.)

Regulation (EU) 2025/1733 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 as regards the role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Reykjavik District Court dated 15 April 2025 in the case of Ólafur Þór Jónsson and others v The National Energy Authority of Iceland and Benchmark Genetics Iceland hf. (Case E-7/25)

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court in the case of Rainer Silbernagl v Universität Liechtenstein (Case E-5/25)

Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No. 3/2025/SC of 7 May 2025 on internal cost sharing [2025/1873]

Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No. 2/2025/SC of 6 February 2025 on the continuation of the designated Performance Review Body of the single European sky for the EFTA States [2025/1872]

You May Also Like

Review of the EU legislation for 04/10/2025

Review of the EU legislation for 28/09/2025