Review of the EU legislation for 25/09/2025

Legal Analysis

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1493

This regulation fine-tunes the management of central counterparty (CCP) colleges, the supervisory bodies overseeing these critical financial institutions. It incorporates changes brought about by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987, specifically on the co-chair roles within these colleges. Essentially, it streamlines how college members share information, sets out the responsibilities of co-chairs, and ensures ESMA has a central coordinating role.

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/1930

This regulation places restrictions on the use of Dechlorane Plus, a persistent organic pollutant. It aligns EU law with the Stockholm Convention. It limits the manufacturing, marketing, and usage of this chemical, but provides some temporary exemptions for critical areas like aerospace, defense, and medical applications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1909

This regulation determines which countries and product types will lose their preferential tariff treatment under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) from 2026 to 2028. The affected countries and product sections are listed in an annex. If a country exports certain volumes of a product to the EU over a certain threshold, the EU may decide to suspend lower tariffs on that particular product.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1908

This regulation amends the rules concerning the veterinary drug fluralaner. It introduces maximum residue limits (MRLs) for fluralaner in fin fish. In practice it expands the permitted use of the drug from poultry to include fish by setting 65 μg/kg limit, applicable to muscle and skin.

General Court Judgments on Tecfidera (Multiple Cases)

Several judgments concern the drug Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The General Court annulled decisions made by the European Commission to grant additional years of market protection to Biogen, the maker of Tecfidera. The key issue in each case was whether Biogen met the requirement to obtain authorization for a new therapeutic indication of Tecfidera within a specific timeframe.

General Court Judgment on Barry’s Bootcamp vs. Hummel

This judgment concerns a dispute over the use of a figurative trade mark consisting of two chevrons. Barry’s Bootcamp challenged Hummel’s use of the mark, arguing that it had not been put to genuine use. The General Court dismissed Barry’s Bootcamp’s action, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal, which found that Hummel Holding A/S had demonstrated genuine use of the contested trade mark.

General Court Judgment on Digi International, Inc. vs. Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd

This judgment concerns a trade mark dispute between Digi International and Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd. The General Court annulled a decision by the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, ruling that the Board failed to adequately explain its assessment of the time, nature, and extent of genuine use of an earlier trade mark.

General Court Judgment on AQ vs. ECHA

This case concerns access to documents related to the export of dangerous chemicals. The court dismissed AQ’s attempt to prevent the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from granting access to a document related to the export of dangerous chemicals, reinforcing the principle of public access to documents held by EU institutions.

General Court Judgment on Cham Wings Airlines LLC vs. Council

This case concerns the restrictive measures against Cham Wings Airlines LLC in view of the situation in Syria. The General Court dismissed the airline’s action, thereby upholding the Council’s decision to maintain its name on the EU’s list of entities subject to a freezing of funds and economic resources.

General Court Judgments on Bogoljub Karić v Council

Concerns the legality of EU sanctions imposed on Mr. Bogoljub Karić, a Serbian businessman and politician, due to his alleged links to the Lukashenko regime in Belarus and Belarus’s involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The General Court dismisses Mr. Karić’s action, upholding the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the EU’s list of sanctioned individuals.

General Court Judgment on Al-Aqeelah Takaful Insurance Company vs. Council

Concerns Al-Aqeelah Takaful Insurance Company challenging the Council’s decision to maintain its name on the list of entities subject to fund freezing. The court ultimately dismisses the company’s action, upholding the Council’s decision.

General Court Judgment on Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) vs. Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Deals with a dispute over Community Plant Variety Rights for apple varieties “Cripps Pink” and “Cripps Red”. The Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) is challenging a decision by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) Board of Appeal, which ordered the CPVO to re-examine the validity of these plant variety rights due to doubts about their novelty. The General Court dismissed the action brought by WAAA, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision.

General Court Judgment on BTFY Trademark

Deals with an application by Mr. Riccardo Zizioli to register the word mark “Confrasilvas” for construction-related services and an opposition filed by Confrasilvas. The court ultimately dismissed the action brought by Confrasilvas, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

General Court Judgment on “Confrasilvas” Trademark

Concerns an application by Digi International, Inc. to register the figurative mark “DIGI” for goods and services in Classes 9, 38, and 42. The judgement addresses whether the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal correctly assessed the genuine use of the earlier mark and whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The General Court ultimately annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision due to a failure to adequately state the reasons for its findings regarding the time, nature, and extent of the genuine use of the earlier mark.

General Court Judgment on Sanofi BV vs. European Commission

This case involves Sanofi BV challenging the decision by the European Commission regarding the marketing authorisation of the medicinal product Nexviadyme (avalglucosidase alfa), used for treating Pompe disease. Sanofi argued that avalglucosidase alfa should have been recognised as a new active substance (NAS) and the product should have maintained its classification as an orphan medicinal product. The court ultimately dismissed the action, upholding the Commission’s decision.

General Court Judgment on BARRY’S BOOTCAMP HOLDINGS LLC vs. EUIPO

This case deals with the EUIPO’s decision regarding the genuine use of a figurative mark representing eight inverted black chevrons, which is owned by Hummel Holding A/S. The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, thereby establishing that Hummel’s use of the trade mark has been demonstrated sufficiently.

General Court Judgment on Mowi Poland S.A. v European Commission

Deals with a case brought by Mowi Poland S.A., a company specializing in smoked salmon processing, against the European Commission regarding the annulment of a provision in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141. The provision in the judgment revolved around the “stiffening” technique used by Mowi Poland S.A., which involves lowering the temperature of smoked salmon fillets to facilitate slicing. The Court found that the Commission had failed to consult the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before adopting it, and the judgment was, therefore, upheld.

EU Tribunal (Fifth Chamber) Judgment in Case T-552/24, Johan Lami v Frontex

This case concerned the calculation of annual leave for contract staff at Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) who work in shifts. The applicant, Johan Lami, contested Frontex’s method of deducting leave days for absences during 12-hour shifts. The judgment deals with Frontex’s calculation of annual leave for its contract staff who work in rotating shifts. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim and upheld Frontex’s method, finding that it did not violate the Staff Regulations or the principle of equal treatment.

General Court Judgement on Aliud Pharma GmbH vs European Commission

This case involves a challenge from Aliud Pharma GmbH, a company producing generic drugs, against the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen Netherlands BV, the original manufacturer of Tecfidera, an additional year of market protection for the drug. The decision in the judgement concerns the interpretation of whether DMF is a “new active substance” compared to Fumaderm. The judgment emphasizes that to qualify for the extension, the new therapeutic indication must be authorized within the first eight years of the initial ten-year market protection period, and the action was, therefore, upheld.

General Court Judgement on Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL vs EUIPO

This judgement is from the General Court on an EU trade mark revocation case. The case revolves around the EU word mark “SEQUOÏA” registered for “Fresh fruits and vegetables” in Class 31. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had dismissed Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL’s appeal and confirmed the revocation of the trade mark. The main focus of the judgement was on establishing use of the trade mark, rather than use as a descriptive term.

General Court Judgment on BIOALCHEMILLA SRL vs EUIPO

This case involved Bioalchemilla Srl and Alkemilla Eco Bio Cosmetic Srl against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and it concerned the validity of the EU trademark “NAMALEI”. The applicants sought to annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which rejected their application for a declaration of invalidity of the NAMALEI trademark. The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision.

General Court Judgment on XH vs European Commission

This case involves an OLAF official, XH, against the European Commission regarding a series of decisions related to an OLAF investigation in which XH was implicated. The judgment mainly addresses the admissibility of claims. The court found that challenges to ongoing OLAF investigations are inadmissible because they are preparatory measures and do not directly affect the applicant’s legal position.

General Court Judgment on Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH vs European Commission

This case is about a challenge by Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH against the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen Netherlands BV an additional year of market protection for the medicinal product Tecfidera. The General Court ultimately annuls the Commission’s decision, concluding that the additional year of market protection was granted in violation of EU law.

General Court Judgement on KF vs European Investment Bank (EIB)

This case concerns a complaint of moral harassment filed by KF, a former head of unit at the EIB, against the bank. The judgment deals with KF’s request to annul the EIB’s decision of January 17, 2024, which partially rejected her complaint of moral harassment. The judgment clarifies the definition and scope of “moral harassment” under the EIB’s policy, emphasizing the need for repeated and sustained behaviors that undermine a person’s dignity and working conditions.

EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-20/24, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

This case concerns Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1118 into its national law. The Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations and ordered Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision in Case 80078 – Norway – Unlawful State Aid

This decision determines that the Norwegian municipality of Lørenskog provided illegal state aid to a private company by not collecting payment for a property sale, and it orders Norway to recover that amount from the company.

EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on State Aid Recovery Rates

This notice announces the applicable interest rates for state aid recovery and the reference/discount rates for the EFTA States effective from July 1, 2025. These rates are crucial for calculating the financial burden on companies that have received illegal state aid and for determining the advantage conferred by aid measures.

EFTA Court on Conditions for State Liability

This judgment from the EFTA Court clarifying the conditions under which a state can be held liable for damages caused by decisions of its national courts that infringe EEA law. It addresses when a national court is considered to be adjudicating at last instance and what constitutes a manifest infringement of EEA law that could trigger state liability.

EFTA Advisory Opinion on Insurance Claims Against Gable Insurance AG

World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies: Entry into Force

This notice announces the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. The amendment, which aims to regulate fisheries subsidies more effectively, became effective on September 15, 2025. This signifies a crucial step towards sustainable fishing practices and the elimination of harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Decision No 1/2025 of the EU-Moldova Association Committee in Trade Configuration

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1493 of 11 June 2025 amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 876/2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards changes to the functioning and management of colleges for central counterparties

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1493 amends the existing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 876/2013, which supplements Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) regarding the functioning and management of colleges for central counterparties (CCPs). The new regulation adjusts the rules to reflect changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987, particularly concerning the role of co-chairs in CCP colleges and the coordination by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). It aims to enhance supervisory convergence and the consistent operation of CCP colleges.

The regulation modifies several articles of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 876/2013. It revises the process for written agreements among college members, clarifies the roles of co-chairs, updates the information to be shared within the college, and mandates the use of a central database for information exchange. Specifically, it replaces paragraphs in Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5, and deletes Article 5a. These changes ensure that the new co-chair role is integrated, ESMA’s coordination is facilitated, and information flow is streamlined.

Key provisions include the enhanced role of the co-chairs in managing the college’s work, particularly in discussing the implementation of annual supervisory priorities. The updated list of information items to be shared with the college now includes reports on ICT and cyber-related incidents, details on major commercial proposals, changes in risk models, outsourcing arrangements, and payment/settlement arrangements. The requirement to exchange information through the central database provided by Article 17c of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 is also a significant change, aiming to improve the efficiency and timeliness of information flow among college members.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1930 of 15 May 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Dechlorane Plus

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/1930 introduces amendments to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 concerning persistent organic pollutants, specifically focusing on Dechlorane Plus. The regulation aims to align EU law with international commitments under the Stockholm Convention, which recently added Dechlorane Plus to its list of prohibited chemicals with specific exemptions. This amendment restricts the manufacturing, placing on the market, and use of Dechlorane Plus, while providing temporary derogations for certain critical applications.

The regulation amends Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 by adding Dechlorane Plus to the list of substances. It specifies concentration limits for Dechlorane Plus as an unintentional trace contaminant, setting an initial limit of 1 000 mg/kg until April 15, 2028, and then reducing it to 1 mg/kg thereafter. The regulation also provides specific exemptions for the use of Dechlorane Plus in aerospace, space, and defense applications, medical imaging, radiotherapy devices, and as spare parts for various vehicles, machines, and equipment. These exemptions are time-limited, with most expiring by February 26, 2030, or the end of the service life of the relevant product, but no later than December 31, 2043.

The most important provisions include the restriction on Dechlorane Plus, the defined concentration limits for unintentional contamination, and the specific time-limited exemptions for critical uses. Businesses need to be aware of the deadlines for these exemptions and the stricter concentration limits coming into effect in 2028. The regulation also allows for the continued use of articles containing Dechlorane Plus that were already in use before the expiry date of the relevant exemption, and it permits the placing on the market and use of spare parts for aerospace, space, and defense applications containing Dechlorane Plus that are already in the Union before the exemption expires.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1909 of 24 September 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the suspension for the years 2026-2028 of certain tariff preferences granted to certain GSP beneficiary countries

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1909 outlines which countries and product categories will have their tariff preferences suspended under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) for the years 2026-2028. It identifies specific GSP beneficiary countries and the product sections for which the standard tariff advantages will not apply when exporting to the EU. This suspension is based on exceeding import thresholds set in the overarching GSP Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

The regulation consists of a preamble that explains the reasons for the regulation, two articles outlining the suspension and its period of application, and an annex. The annex contains a table specifying the GSP beneficiary countries (Column A) and the corresponding GSP product sections (Column B) and their descriptions (Column C) for which tariff preferences are suspended. The regulation is based on a review conducted every three years, as mandated by Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. It updates the list of suspensions based on trade statistics from 2021-2023. This regulation repeals and replaces the previous list established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1039, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2780, which was applicable until December 31, 2025.

The most important aspect of this regulation is the annex, which directly impacts exporters in GSP beneficiary countries. For example, if you are an exporter from India, you will see that tariff preferences are suspended for a wide range of products, including mineral products, chemicals, plastics, textiles, articles of stone, precious metals, iron, steel, machinery, and vehicles. Similarly, exporters from Indonesia will face suspensions on live animals, animal products, vegetable oils, mineral products and wood articles. Kenyan exporters will see suspensions on live plants and floricultural products. Businesses need to check the annex carefully to determine if their products are affected by the suspension of tariff preferences, as this will impact the cost of exporting these goods to the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1908 of 24 September 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as regards the classification of the substance fluralaner with respect to its maximum residue limit in foodstuffs of animal origin

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1908 amends Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, specifically concerning the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for the veterinary medicinal product fluralaner in foodstuffs of animal origin. The key change introduces MRLs for fluralaner in fin fish, expanding its permitted use beyond poultry. This adjustment follows a scientific assessment by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which recommended these limits based on an application and evaluation.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 is amended as set out in the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 states the date of entry into force of the regulation. The annex replaces the entry for fluralaner in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010, adding a new entry for fin fish with an MRL of 65 μg/kg in muscle and skin in natural proportions. Previously, fluralaner was only listed for poultry.

The most important provision is the establishment of a maximum residue limit (MRL) for fluralaner in fin fish at 65 μg/kg, applicable to muscle and skin in natural proportions. This means that food safety controls will now monitor fluralaner residue levels in fin fish to ensure they do not exceed this limit, protecting consumers from potential exposure to excessive levels of the substance.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Teva GmbH v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-393/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the extension of market protection for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The court annuls the European Commission’s decision to grant an additional year of market protection for Tecfidera. This decision is significant because it clarifies the requirements for extending market protection for medicinal products based on new therapeutic indications.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the involved parties (Teva GmbH, the European Commission, and Biogen Netherlands BV), the history of the marketing authorizations for Tecfidera and a related product called Fumaderm, and the relevant regulatory events. The court then details the forms of order sought by the parties, followed by an analysis of the admissibility of the action. The core of the judgment addresses the substance of the case, focusing on whether the Commission correctly applied Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004, which governs the extension of market protection for medicinal products. Finally, the court rules on the allocation of costs.

The most important provision of the judgment is its interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004. The court emphasizes that to qualify for an additional year of market protection, the marketing authorization holder must obtain authorization for a new therapeutic indication within the first eight years of the initial ten-year marketing protection period. The court finds that the Commission erred in granting the extension because the authorization for the new therapeutic indication was obtained outside this eight-year window. The court rejects the Commission’s arguments that exceptional circumstances justified the delay, holding that the legal requirements must be strictly adhered to. This interpretation reinforces the importance of adhering to timelines for obtaining regulatory approvals to benefit from market exclusivity extensions.

Urteil des Gerichts (Vierte Kammer) vom 24. September 2025.#Hexal AG gegen Europäische Kommission.#Humanarzneimittel – Änderung der Genehmigung für das Inverkehrbringen des Humanarzneimittels Tecfidera – Dimethylfumarat – Richtlinie 2001/83/EG – Art. 14 Abs. 11 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 726/2004 – Art. 266 AEUV.#Rechtssache T-299/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorization for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment annuls the European Commission’s decision to grant an additional year of market protection for Tecfidera. The court found that the Commission incorrectly extended the market protection period because the requirement of obtaining authorization for a new therapeutic indication within the first eight years of the initial market authorization was not met. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to deadlines to balance incentivizing innovation with promoting generic drug availability.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The document is structured as a legal judgment, including:

* **Introduction:** Identifies the parties involved (Hexal AG as the applicant, the European Commission as the defendant, and Biogen Netherlands BV as an intervener) and the purpose of the action (annulment of the Commission’s decision).
* **Background:** Describes the history of the case, including the initial marketing authorization for Tecfidera, previous legal challenges, and the application for an extension of market protection.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments presented by Hexal AG (that the Commission did not respect the deadline) and the Commission (supported by Biogen, that the delay was due to a previous court ruling).
* **Legal Analysis:** The court’s reasoning for annulling the Commission’s decision, focusing on the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.
* **Decision:** The court’s ruling to annul the Commission’s decision.
* **Costs:** Allocation of costs among the parties.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The core of the judgment revolves around Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which allows for extending the market protection of a medicinal product by one year (from 10 to 11 years) if the marketing authorization holder obtains, within the first eight years of the initial 10-year period, an authorization for a new therapeutic indication that provides a significant clinical benefit.

The court interprets this provision strictly, stating that the authorization for the new therapeutic indication *must* be obtained within the eight-year timeframe. The judgment clarifies that the Commission cannot extend this deadline, even in light of previous legal proceedings that may have caused delays.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

For pharmaceutical companies and those involved in market authorization of medicinal products, the key takeaway is the strict interpretation of the deadline for obtaining authorization for new therapeutic indications to qualify for the additional year of market protection. Companies must ensure that applications for new indications are submitted and approved well within the eight-year timeframe to avoid losing the opportunity for extended market exclusivity. The judgment also highlights the limits of the Commission’s power to deviate from established legal provisions, even when acting to implement court rulings.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark representing two horizontal black chevrons – Action for annulment – Time limits for instituting proceedings – Admissibility – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-390/23.

This judgment concerns an action for annulment brought by Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the revocation of Hummel Holding A/S’s EU figurative mark, which consists of two horizontal black chevrons. The core issue is whether Hummel’s use of the mark constitutes genuine use, considering variations in the mark’s appearance. The General Court dismisses Barry’s Bootcamp’s action, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the application for revocation, the Cancellation Division’s decision, and the Board of Appeal’s decision. It then presents the forms of order sought by the parties. The main body of the judgment addresses the admissibility of the action and the two pleas in law raised by the applicant: (1) infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (obligation to state reasons) and (2) infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (genuine use of the mark). The judgment concludes with a decision on costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation of “genuine use” of a trade mark under Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 18(1)(a) which allows for variations in the mark that do not alter its distinctive character. The court clarifies that a trade mark can be considered genuinely used even if it appears in a form that differs in non-distinctive elements. The judgment also emphasizes that the use of a mark must be in accordance with its essential function as an indicator of origin. The court also addresses the issue of whether the use of the contested mark was purely decorative, ultimately concluding that it was indeed used as a trade mark.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Digi International, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark DIGI – Earlier EU figurative mark DIGI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-196/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Digi International, Inc. to register the figurative mark “DIGI” for goods and services in Classes 9, 38, and 42. Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd opposed this registration based on its earlier EU figurative mark “DIGI” registered for goods in Classes 7 and 9.

The core of the judgment addresses whether the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal correctly assessed the genuine use of the earlier mark and whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The General Court ultimately annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision due to a failure to adequately state the reasons for its findings regarding the time, nature, and extent of the genuine use of the earlier mark.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background of the dispute, outlining the marks, goods, and services involved, as well as the opposition proceedings. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant (Digi International) and the EUIPO. The “Law” section details the applicant’s pleas, which include distortion of evidence, failure to state reasons, and incorrect assessment of the evidence. The Court focuses on the plea of failure to state reasons, examining whether the Board of Appeal adequately explained its assessment of the time, nature, and extent of genuine use. The Court finds that the Board of Appeal’s reasoning was too vague and imprecise, making it impossible for the Court to properly review the decision. As a result, the Court annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision.

The most important provision of this act is that EUIPO decisions must be clearly and unequivocally reasoned. The General Court emphasized that the Board of Appeal must provide sufficient detail regarding the evidence relied upon and the reasoning followed in its decisions, particularly when assessing genuine use of a trade mark. This includes clearly identifying the evidence considered, explaining how it supports the findings, and addressing any inconsistencies or ambiguities. The judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in EUIPO decisions and ensures that parties have the ability to understand and challenge those decisions effectively.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2025.AQ v European Chemicals Agency.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Document relating to notifications for the export of dangerous chemicals which are prohibited or severely restricted within the European Union – Decision of ECHA to grant access to a third party – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Proportionality.Case T-1101/23.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case (T-1101/23) between a company, AQ, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The case concerns access to documents related to notifications for the export of dangerous chemicals that are prohibited or severely restricted within the EU. AQ sought to annul ECHA’s decision to grant a third party (Public Eye, a non-governmental organization) access to a document containing information about AQ’s export notifications. The court ultimately dismissed AQ’s action, upholding ECHA’s decision to grant access to the requested documents.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including AQ’s business activities, the request for access to documents, and the exchange of correspondence between AQ and ECHA.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** It states the requests made by AQ (annulment of ECHA’s decision) and ECHA (dismissal of the action and payment of costs by AQ).
* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment, addressing the admissibility of evidence and the substance of AQ’s claims.
* **Admissibility:** The court ruled on the admissibility of certain evidence submitted by AQ, excluding evidence that ECHA was not aware of when making its decision.
* **Substance:** The court examined AQ’s two pleas:
* **First Plea:** Alleging that ECHA made a manifest error of assessment regarding the risk of undermining AQ’s commercial interests. The court rejected this plea, finding that AQ did not sufficiently demonstrate how the disclosure of the information would harm its commercial interests.
* **Second Plea:** Alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The court rejected this plea as well, finding that since the disclosure did not undermine AQ’s commercial interests, ECHA was not required to balance opposing interests.
* **Costs:** The court ordered AQ to pay the costs of the proceedings, as it was the unsuccessful party.

**Main Provisions and Key Considerations:**

* **Access to Documents:** The judgment reinforces the principle of public access to documents held by EU institutions, as established in Regulation No 1049/2001.
* **Exceptions to Access:** It clarifies that exceptions to this principle, such as the protection of commercial interests, must be interpreted strictly. The party seeking to invoke an exception must provide specific evidence of how disclosure would undermine the protected interest.
* **Timing of Evidence:** The judgment emphasizes that the legality of ECHA’s decision is assessed based on the information available to it at the time the decision was made. Companies must provide relevant evidence during the consultation process with ECHA.
* **Commercial Interests:** The court clarified that not all information concerning a company and its business relations requires protection. It must be shown that the documents contain elements that, if disclosed, would seriously undermine the commercial interests of the company.
* **Proportionality:** The principle of proportionality requires a balancing of interests. However, if no legitimate interest is at stake, the authority is not required to perform this assessment.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Cham Wings Airlines LLC v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria – Freezing of funds – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘association with the Syrian regime’ – Error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality.Case T-415/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Cham Wings Airlines LLC in view of the situation in Syria. The airline sought the annulment of Council decisions and regulations that maintained its name on the EU’s list of entities subject to a freezing of funds and economic resources. The court ultimately dismissed the airline’s action.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses three pleas raised by Cham Wings Airlines: (1) errors of assessment by the Council, (2) infringement of the principle of proportionality, and (3) infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

* **Errors of Assessment:** The airline argued that the Council failed to prove its association with the Syrian regime. The court examined the evidence provided by the Council, including the airline’s ownership by Mr. Shammout, its status as the only private airline in Syria, and its alleged involvement in activities such as transferring mercenaries, arms trading, narcotics trafficking, and money laundering. The court found that the Council had provided sufficient evidence to support its assessment that the airline benefited from and supported the Syrian regime.
* **Proportionality:** The airline claimed that the restrictive measures were disproportionate, harming its business and reputation. The court found that the measures were appropriate for achieving the legitimate objective of protecting civilian populations and that the measures were reversible and temporary.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The airline argued that the Council’s reasons for maintaining its name on the list were insufficient. The court found that the Council had provided clear and specific reasons for its decision, allowing the airline to understand and challenge the measures effectively.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing regulations. It interprets and applies existing EU law on restrictive measures, specifically those related to Syria. The judgment clarifies the standard of evidence required to demonstrate an association with the Syrian regime and the factors considered when assessing the proportionality of restrictive measures.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspect of this judgment is its clarification of the evidentiary standard required to justify the imposition and maintenance of restrictive measures. The Council must provide a “sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence” to establish a link between the sanctioned entity and the regime. The judgment also highlights the importance of examining evidence in its context and considering all relevant factors, including any observations submitted by the sanctioned entity.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2025.Mylan Ireland Ltd v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-256/23.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The case revolves around whether the marketing protection for Tecfidera should be extended by one year. Mylan Ireland Ltd. is challenging the European Commission’s decision to grant this extension to Biogen Netherlands BV, the company holding the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the history of Tecfidera’s marketing authorisation and related legal proceedings. It then presents the forms of order sought by the parties involved (Mylan, the Commission, and Biogen). The main body of the judgment consists of the Court’s legal analysis, addressing the admissibility of Mylan’s claims and the substance of the case. The Court examines Mylan’s nine pleas in law, focusing primarily on the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004, which governs the extension of marketing protection for medicinal products. Finally, the judgment concludes with a ruling on costs.

The most important provision for its use is the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004. The court found that the Commission incorrectly granted an additional year of marketing protection to Tecfidera. According to the court, to qualify for this extension, the authorisation for a new therapeutic indication must be obtained within the first eight years of the initial ten-year marketing protection period. Since the authorisation for Tecfidera’s new therapeutic indication was granted outside this timeframe, the extension was deemed unlawful. This clarifies the strict conditions for obtaining extended marketing protection for medicinal products in the EU.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Bogoljub Karić v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or to restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment.Case T-238/24.

Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-238/24, *Bogoljub Karić v Council*:

**1. Essence of the Act**

This judgment concerns the legality of EU sanctions imposed on Mr. Bogoljub Karić, a Serbian businessman and politician, due to his alleged links to the Lukashenko regime in Belarus and Belarus’s involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The General Court dismisses Mr. Karić’s action, upholding the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the EU’s list of sanctioned individuals. The Court finds that the Council provided sufficient reasons for maintaining the sanctions and did not commit errors of assessment in concluding that Mr. Karić benefits from and supports the Lukashenko regime.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions**

The judgment addresses Mr. Karić’s challenge to Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768, which extended restrictive measures against him.

* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of EU restrictive measures against Belarus, initially focused on human rights and democracy, and later expanded to address Belarus’s role in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Mr. Karić was initially added to the sanctions list in 2022.
* **Applicant’s Arguments:** Mr. Karić raised two main pleas:
* Infringement of his right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.
* Errors of assessment by the Council in concluding that he benefits from or supports the Lukashenko regime.
* **Court’s Analysis:**
* **Statement of Reasons:** The Court found that the Council provided an adequate statement of reasons, clearly identifying the criteria for sanctions (benefitting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime) and the specific reasons for Mr. Karić’s listing.
* **Errors of Assessment:** The Court rejected Mr. Karić’s arguments, finding that the Council had a sufficiently solid factual basis to conclude that he benefits from and supports the Lukashenko regime. This was based on his ties to real estate companies in Belarus (particularly Dana Holdings and Dana Astra), his family’s network of contacts with Lukashenko, and the preferential treatment these companies received from the regime.
* **Dismissal:** The Court dismissed the action and ordered Mr. Karić to pay the costs.

**3. Main Provisions Important for Use**

* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the reasons for imposing sanctions are well-founded.
* **Standard of Review:** The Court emphasizes that it must ensure that the Council’s decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and that it must verify the factual allegations in the statement of reasons.
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The Court assesses evidence not in isolation but in context, considering its specificity, precision, and consistency.
* **Preventive Nature of Sanctions:** The judgment acknowledges the precautionary and provisional nature of restrictive measures, emphasizing the need for the Council to conduct updated assessments to determine whether the measures are still justified.
* **”Benefitting From or Supporting”:** The Court clarifies that the listing criterion of “benefitting from or supporting” the Lukashenko regime is not limited to direct financial or material support but encompasses any form of support.
* **Relevance of Past Events:** The Court confirms that past events can be relevant in justifying the maintenance of sanctions, provided that the grounds for listing remain unchanged and the context has not changed in such a way that the evidence is now out of date.

**:** This case is related to the EU’s restrictive measures against Belarus due to the situation in the country and its involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. This means that the judgment has implications for individuals and entities associated with the Belarusian regime and for the EU’s foreign policy towards Belarus and Ukraine.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing two chevrons pointing to the right – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark.Case T-31/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application for revocation of an international registration designating the European Union for a figurative mark consisting of two chevrons pointing to the right, owned by Hummel Holding A/S. Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC sought to revoke the mark based on the argument that it had not been put to genuine use in the EU.

The General Court dismissed the action brought by Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had found that Hummel Holding A/S had demonstrated genuine use of the contested trade mark for “sports footwear, leisure footwear; fashion footwear”. The court addressed arguments related to the nature of the use of the mark, specifically whether the use was merely decorative or served as an indicator of commercial origin, and whether variations in the form of the mark (such as chevrons pointing in the opposite direction or changes in color) altered its distinctive character.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, particularly concerning what constitutes “genuine use” of a trade mark and the extent to which a mark can be altered without losing its protection. The court emphasized that the mark must be used to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods and services, and that variations in the mark are acceptable as long as they do not alter its distinctive character. The court also clarified that the assessment of genuine use should be made by considering all the evidence as a whole, rather than examining each piece of evidence in isolation.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Zakłady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-258/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The pharmaceutical company Zakłady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. is challenging the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen, the maker of Tecfidera, an additional year of market protection. Polpharma argues that the Commission’s decision was unlawful because Biogen did not meet the requirements for the extension.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses the action brought by Polpharma against the Commission’s decision C(2023) 3067 (final) of 2 May 2023, which amended the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera. The core of the dispute revolves around Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which allows for an extension of marketing protection for a medicinal product by one year (up to 11 years) if the marketing authorisation holder obtains authorisation for a new therapeutic indication within the first eight years of the initial ten-year protection period.

The General Court examines Polpharma’s claims, which include:
* The Commission failed to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection.
* The Commission misinterpreted the scope of a previous judgment.
* The Commission based its decision on incorrect scientific facts.
* Illegality of the initial implementing decision.
* Infringement of fundamental rights.
* Infringement of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
* Infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality.
* Misuse of powers by the Commission.

The Court analyses whether the Commission correctly applied Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004 and whether the judgment of 5 May 2021, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA (T‑611/18, EU:T:2021:241), had any bearing on the lack of a grant of an authorisation for a new therapeutic indication for Tecfidera within the period laid down in Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important provision is the interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004. The General Court emphasizes that the authorization for a new therapeutic indication must be obtained within the first eight years of marketing protection to qualify for the one-year extension. The Court found that the Commission’s decision to grant an additional year of marketing protection for Tecfidera was unlawful because the authorization for the new therapeutic indication was not obtained within the required timeframe. The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision, meaning that Biogen’s Tecfidera does not receive the additional year of market protection.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Confrasilvas – Construções S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Confrasilvas – Earlier sign Confrasilvas – Relative ground for refusal – Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-557/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark opposition. The case revolves around an application by Mr. Riccardo Zizioli to register the word mark “Confrasilvas” for construction-related services and an opposition filed by Confrasilvas – Construções, S. A., based on their earlier use of the sign “Confrasilvas” in the course of trade. The court ultimately dismissed the action brought by Confrasilvas – Construções, S. A., upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. The applicant sought the annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision and the upholding of their opposition. The court then addresses the admissibility of new evidence presented for the first time before the General Court, ultimately ruling much of it inadmissible. The substance of the case centers on whether the Board of Appeal correctly applied Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the relative grounds for refusal of a trade mark based on earlier non-registered rights. The court examines whether the earlier sign was used in the course of trade and if it had more than mere local significance.

The most important provision in this judgment is the interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The court emphasizes that the conditions for a successful opposition under this article are cumulative. This means that the opponent must prove that the earlier sign was used in the course of trade, that it had more than mere local significance, that the right to the sign was acquired under the relevant Member State’s law, and that the sign confers the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. The court’s focus on the cumulative nature of these conditions and its strict scrutiny of the evidence presented to demonstrate use in trade with more than mere local significance are key takeaways from this judgment.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2025.Sanofi BV, anciennement Genzyme Europe BV v European Commission.Public health – Medicinal products for human use – Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Nexviadyme (avalglucosidase alfa) – Non-recognition of avalglucosidase alfa as a new active substance – Directive 2001/83/EC – Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Commission document ‘Notice to Applicants, Volume 2A, Procedures for marketing authorisation, Chapter 1, Marketing Authorisation’ – Standard of proof – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of good administration – Right to be heard – Decision to remove the medicinal product from the European Union Register of Orphan Medicinal Products – Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 – Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 – Significant benefit – Standard of proof – Obligation to state reasons.Case T-483/22.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the marketing authorization of the medicinal product Nexviadyme (avalglucosidase alfa), used for treating Pompe disease. The applicant, Sanofi BV, sought partial annulment of the European Commission’s decision, arguing that avalglucosidase alfa should have been recognized as a new active substance (NAS) and that the product should have maintained its classification as an orphan medicinal product. The court ultimately dismissed the action, upholding the Commission’s decision.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** Details the legal context, including relevant EU directives and regulations concerning medicinal products, marketing authorizations, and orphan medicinal products. It also outlines the history of the development of Nexviadyme and the procedures followed for its marketing authorization application.
2. **Forms of Order Sought:** Summarizes the requests made by the applicant, the Commission, and the intervening parties (European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) and European Medicines Agency (EMA)).
3. **Law:** This section presents the court’s reasoning and legal analysis, divided into three main pleas raised by the applicant:

* **First Plea:** Infringement of Directive 2001/83 and Regulation No 726/2004, manifest error of assessment, and inadequate statement of reasons regarding the refusal to recognize avalglucosidase alfa as a new active substance.
* **Second Plea:** Breach of the principle of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, alleging issues with impartiality and access to documents during the assessment process.
* **Third Plea:** Infringement of Regulation No 141/2000, manifest error of assessment, and inadequate statement of reasons concerning the decision to remove Nexviadyme from the EU Register of Orphan Medicinal Products.
4. **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the legal proceedings.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The judgment primarily addresses the interpretation and application of existing EU pharmaceutical legislation. It clarifies the criteria for determining whether a substance qualifies as a new active substance (NAS) and the requirements for maintaining orphan medicinal product status. The court emphasizes the importance of scientific assessments by the EMA’s committees (CHMP and COMP) and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* **Definition of New Active Substance (NAS):** The judgment provides insights into how the EU authorities assess whether a modified substance qualifies as an NAS, particularly in the context of biological medicinal products. It clarifies that simply modifying an existing substance does not automatically grant NAS status; significant differences in safety and/or efficacy must be demonstrated.
* **Orphan Medicinal Product Status:** The judgment underscores the strict criteria for maintaining orphan status, requiring a “significant benefit” over existing treatments. It clarifies that a clinically relevant advantage or a major contribution to patient care must be demonstrated with concrete and substantiated evidence.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment highlights the limited role of the EU courts in reviewing scientific assessments made by the EMA’s committees. The court can only assess the procedural aspects, consistency, and reasoning of the assessments, but cannot substitute its own scientific judgment.
* **Good Administration:** The judgment addresses the principles of impartiality and transparency in administrative procedures. It clarifies the rights of applicants to be heard and to access relevant information, while also recognizing the EMA’s role in providing scientific and regulatory support to its committees.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Issam Shammout v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria – Freezing of funds – Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businessperson operating in Syria’ – Presumption of a link with the Syrian regime – Error of assessment.Case T-413/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against a Syrian businessman, Issam Shammout. Mr. Shammout challenged the Council’s decision to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions list, arguing that he is not associated with the Syrian regime. The General Court dismissed his action, finding that the Council was justified in maintaining the sanctions.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The judgment addresses an action brought by Mr. Shammout against the Council of the European Union. He sought the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517, which maintained his name on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel ban) due to the situation in Syria.
* The Council initially placed Mr. Shammout on the sanctions list because he was deemed a “leading businessperson operating in Syria” through his ownership and chairmanship of Cham Wings Airlines and his leadership of the Shammout Group.
* Mr. Shammout argued that the Council erred in its assessment and that he had rebutted the presumption of a link with the Syrian regime. He claimed discrimination by the regime and denied any involvement in unlawful activities.
* The General Court upheld the Council’s decision, stating that being a “leading businessperson operating in Syria” is a sufficient criterion for maintaining sanctions. The court found that Mr. Shammout had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of a link with the Syrian regime.
* The Court also stated that events that occurred after the adoption of the contested acts, such as the alleged fall of the Syrian regime, cannot be used to challenge the legality of those acts.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

* The judgment clarifies the application of the “leading businessperson operating in Syria” criterion for imposing sanctions. It confirms that this status creates a rebuttable presumption of a link with the Syrian regime.
* The judgment outlines the standard of proof required for individuals to challenge their inclusion on the EU’s sanctions list. It emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the Council but that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to call into question the Council’s assessment.
* The judgment confirms that the legality of sanctions is assessed based on the facts and law at the time of their adoption, not on subsequent events.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark CLAIMS – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-582/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for an EU trade mark. The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reject the trade mark application for the figurative sign “CLAIMS” due to its lack of distinctive character. The applicant, Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd, sought to register the mark for various services in Classes 35, 41, and 45, but EUIPO found the term “claims” to be a generic legal term, and therefore not capable of distinguishing the applicant’s services from those of other undertakings.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background of the dispute, detailing the application for the EU trade mark, the services it was intended to cover, and the reasons for the initial rejection by the examiner. It then outlines the forms of order sought by the applicant and EUIPO. The core of the judgment addresses the applicant’s pleas, specifically focusing on the alleged infringement of Article 94(1) (rights of defence, obligation to state reasons), Article 7(1)(c) (descriptive character), and Article 7(1)(b) (distinctive character) of Regulation 2017/1001. The court dismisses each of these pleas, ultimately upholding EUIPO’s decision. Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the distinctive character of a trade mark. The court emphasizes that for a trade mark to be registered, it must be capable of identifying the origin of the services and distinguishing them from those of other undertakings. The judgment also clarifies that while a sign having multiple meanings is a relevant factor, the applicant must demonstrate that another meaning of the word “claims” is capable of conferring sufficient distinctive character. The court also highlights that the stylization of the sign was fairly standard and did not significantly differ from fonts proposed in broadly used word processing applications.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Al-Aqeelah Takaful Insurance Company v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against Syria – 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 – Action for annulment – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Partial inadmissibility – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Right to property – Freedom to conduct a business – Proportionality.Case T-409/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding restrictive measures against Syria. The Al-Aqeelah Takaful Insurance Company is challenging the Council’s decision to maintain its name on the list of entities subject to fund freezing. The court ultimately dismisses the company’s action, upholding the Council’s decision.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses the applicant’s request to annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517, in so far as they concern it.

The court examines the admissibility of the action against the initial acts, ultimately rejecting it due to the expiration of the time limit for bringing proceedings. The court then considers the substance of the applicant’s claims against the Council’s decision to maintain its name on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

The applicant raises three pleas: breach of the obligation to state reasons, error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of good administration. The court rejects all three pleas.

**Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**

* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The court confirms that the Council must provide clear and specific reasons for imposing restrictive measures, allowing the affected party to understand the basis for the decision and to challenge it legally.
* **Error of Assessment:** The court conducts a thorough review of the evidence presented by the Council to support its decision to maintain the applicant on the list. It emphasizes that the Council must have a sufficiently solid factual basis for its decision.
* **Principle of Proportionality:** The court acknowledges that restrictive measures limit the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property, but it finds that these limitations are justified by the objectives of general interest pursued by the EU, such as protecting civilians and maintaining international peace and security.
* **Principle of Good Administration:** The court emphasizes that the Council must carefully and impartially examine all relevant aspects of the individual case. However, it also notes that the Council is not required to expressly address all arguments and information provided by the affected party.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) v Community Plant Variety Office.Plant varieties – Application for a Community plant variety right for apple varieties Cripps Pink and Cripps Red – Nullity proceedings – Article 53a of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 – Serious doubts – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Novelty.Case T-159/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over Community Plant Variety Rights for apple varieties “Cripps Pink” and “Cripps Red”. The Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) is challenging a decision by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) Board of Appeal, which ordered the CPVO to re-examine the validity of these plant variety rights due to doubts about their novelty. Teak Enterprises Pty Ltd, the intervener, argues the varieties were commercially exploited before the legal deadline, thus lacking novelty.

The core of the judgment revolves around whether the CPVO should initiate nullity proceedings (i.e. proceedings to declare the plant variety right null and void) against the apple varieties. The General Court examines whether the Board of Appeal correctly determined that “serious doubts” exist regarding the novelty of the Cripps Pink and Cripps Red apple varieties, which would justify opening nullity proceedings. The Court assesses the evidence presented by Teak Enterprises, focusing on whether the varieties were commercially exploited before the cut-off date with the breeder’s consent.

The General Court dismisses the action brought by WAAA, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision. The Court finds that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment of the evidence, did not reverse the burden of proof, and did not misinterpret the concept of “consent” regarding the commercial exploitation of the apple varieties. The Court concludes that the evidence presented by Teak Enterprises was sufficient to raise serious doubts about the novelty of the plant varieties, justifying a full re-examination by the CPVO.

The most important provisions of the act are those relating to the criteria for determining the novelty of a plant variety, specifically Article 10 of Regulation No 2100/94, and the conditions under which nullity proceedings can be initiated, as outlined in Article 53a of Regulation No 874/2009. The judgment clarifies the interpretation of “consent” in the context of novelty, confirming that implicit consent from the breeder for commercial exploitation can invalidate a plant variety right. It also emphasizes the importance of assessing new evidence in nullity proceedings, even if similar evidence was previously considered in earlier cases.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark BTFY – Earlier EU word mark Butterfly – Earlier national trade names Butterfly and BTY – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-326/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled on the registrability of the word mark “BTFY” in the EU, specifically addressing an opposition filed by Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH, based on their earlier EU word mark “Butterfly” and German trade names “Butterfly” and “BTY”. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks and dismissing the opposition.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the timeline of events, including the international registration of “BTFY,” the opposition filed by Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH, and the grounds for the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b), 8(4), and 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** This section summarizes the requests made by the applicant (Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH), EUIPO, and the intervener (Domu Brands Ltd).
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and analysis of the court, divided into three pleas in law:
* Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (likelihood of confusion)
* Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 (damage to reputation)
* Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 (non-registered trade mark or sign)
* **Costs:** This section determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The core of the judgment revolves around the assessment of the similarity between the marks “BTFY” and “Butterfly.” The court conducts a detailed analysis of the visual, phonetic, and conceptual aspects of the marks, ultimately concluding that they are dissimilar.

* **Visual Dissimilarity:** The court emphasizes the difference in length and overall impression, noting that the average consumer would not likely perceive the four letters of “BTFY” separately within the longer word “Butterfly.”
* **Phonetic Dissimilarity:** The court finds that “BTFY” would be pronounced letter by letter (four syllables), unlike the three syllables of “Butterfly.”
* **Conceptual Dissimilarity:** While acknowledging that “Butterfly” has a clear meaning for the English-speaking public, the court finds that “BTFY” has no inherent meaning and that the applicant failed to prove that the public would perceive it as an abbreviation of “Butterfly.”

**Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are the detailed analysis of trade mark similarity and the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation 2017/1001.

* **Assessment of Similarity:** The court’s methodology for comparing the visual, phonetic, and conceptual aspects of the marks provides valuable guidance for assessing the likelihood of confusion in trade mark disputes.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims of similarity and use in trade. The applicant’s failure to demonstrate that “BTFY” was perceived as an abbreviation of “Butterfly” was a key factor in the court’s decision.
* **Conditions for Article 8(4):** The judgment clarifies the conditions for a successful opposition based on Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, particularly the requirement of use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 24 septembre 2025.#Johan Lami contre Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes.#Fonction publique – Agents contractuels – Personnel de Frontex – Congés annuels – Articles 56 bis et 57 du statut – Service par tours – Déduction des jours de congé – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-552/24.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the EU Tribunal (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-552/24, *Johan Lami v Frontex*, delivered on September 24, 2025. The case concerns the calculation of annual leave for contract staff at Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) who work in shifts. The applicant, Johan Lami, contested Frontex’s method of deducting leave days for absences during 12-hour shifts.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses a dispute over how Frontex calculates annual leave for its contract staff who work in rotating shifts. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that Frontex had incorrectly calculated his leave entitlement by deducting 1.5 days of leave for each missed 12-hour shift. The Tribunal upheld Frontex’s method, finding that it did not violate the Staff Regulations or the principle of equal treatment.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** Outlines the facts of the case, including the applicant’s employment conditions, the specific incidents leading to the dispute (deduction of leave for absences), and the internal complaint procedure.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s claims (violation of leave entitlement rules, request for annulment of Frontex’s decisions, and restitution of deducted leave days) and Frontex’s defense (rejection of the claims as unfounded).
* **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Tribunal addresses the applicant’s arguments.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Tribunal clarifies that it cannot issue declaratory statements or injunctions to the administration.
* **Subject of Annulment Claims:** Clarifies that the action focuses on annulling Frontex’s initial decisions, considering the reasoning in the rejection of the internal complaint.
* **Merits:** The Tribunal examines the four grounds raised by the applicant:
* Violation of Directive 2003/88/EC (working time) and Frontex’s internal decision No. 27/2023.
* Violation of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations (annual leave).
* Violation of the right to adequate rest.
* Violation of the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
* **Decision:** The Tribunal rejects the applicant’s claims and orders him to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The key provision at issue is Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, which guarantees a minimum of 24 working days of annual leave. The applicant argued that Frontex’s method effectively reduced his leave entitlement because he had to use 1.5 days of leave to cover a 12-hour shift.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that Article 57 does not require each leave day to correspond to a full workday, regardless of the number of hours worked. It emphasized that the applicant’s working hours, although organized in shifts, did not exceed the total annual working hours of staff with standard schedules. Therefore, he was not entitled to more leave.

The Tribunal also addressed the applicant’s arguments based on Directive 2003/88/EC (working time), Directive 89/391/EEC (safety and health at work), and the principles of equal treatment and transparency, finding them all to be without merit.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

* **Interpretation of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations:** The judgment clarifies that the right to 24 days of annual leave does not necessarily mean the right to 24 full days off, irrespective of the employee’s working hours.
* **Application to Shift Work:** The judgment confirms that Frontex can calculate leave for shift workers proportionally to the hours they would have worked during the shift.
* **Equal Treatment:** The judgment reinforces that equal treatment does not require identical treatment in all situations. Differences in treatment are permissible if objectively justified.

This judgment provides clarity on how EU agencies can calculate annual leave for staff working in non-standard schedules, ensuring compliance with the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 24 septembre 2025.#Aliud Pharma GmbH contre Commission européenne.#Médicaments à usage humain – Modification de l’autorisation de mise sur le marché du médicament à usage humain Tecfidera – diméthyle fumarate – Directive 2001/83/CE – Article 14, paragraphe 11, du règlement (CE) no 726/2004 – Article 266 TFUE.#Affaire T-309/23.

This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorization for the human medicine Tecfidera, which contains dimethyl fumarate (DMF). Aliud Pharma GmbH, a pharmaceutical company producing generic drugs, is challenging the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen Netherlands BV, the original manufacturer of Tecfidera, an additional year of market protection for the drug. The core of the dispute revolves around whether Tecfidera should be considered a new medicine distinct from Fumaderm, another drug containing DMF along with other substances.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial marketing authorization for Tecfidera, the debate over whether DMF is a “new active substance” compared to Fumaderm, and previous legal challenges related to generic versions of Tecfidera. The judgment then presents the arguments of Aliud Pharma (the applicant), the European Commission (the defendant), and Biogen Netherlands (the intervener supporting the Commission). The court then proceeds with its legal analysis, focusing on whether the Commission correctly interpreted and applied Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which governs the extension of market protection for medicines with new therapeutic indications.

The most important provision of the judgment is the court’s interpretation of Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004. The court concludes that the Commission erred in granting Biogen an additional year of market protection for Tecfidera. The court emphasizes that to qualify for the extension, the new therapeutic indication must be authorized within the first eight years of the initial ten-year market protection period. Since the new indication for Tecfidera was authorized after this eight-year period, the court annuls the Commission’s decision. This means that generic drug manufacturers like Aliud Pharma can enter the market sooner than anticipated by Biogen and the Commission.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark SEQUOÏA – Lack of genuine use – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use.Case T-301/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark revocation case. The case revolves around the EU word mark “SEQUOÏA” registered for “Fresh fruits and vegetables” in Class 31. The core issue is whether the trade mark owner, Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL, demonstrated genuine use of the mark within the relevant five-year period, as required by Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had dismissed Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL’s appeal and confirmed the revocation of the trade mark. The court found that the evidence presented by Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL did not sufficiently demonstrate that the term “SEQUOÏA” was used as a trade mark to indicate the commercial origin of the goods. Instead, the court agreed with EUIPO that the term was often used to refer to a variety of fruits, thus failing to fulfill the essential function of a trade mark.

The key provision at stake is Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which stipulates that a trade mark can be revoked if it has not been put to genuine use in the EU for a continuous period of five years. The judgment emphasizes that genuine use must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence, and the trade mark must be used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services. The court scrutinized the evidence provided by Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL, including invoices, license agreements, and marketing materials, and found that the use of “SEQUOÏA” was inconsistent and ambiguous, often appearing as a variety designation rather than a trade mark.

Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre) du 24 septembre 2025.#Bioalchemilla Srl et Alkemilla Eco Bio Cosmetic Srl contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative NAMALEI – Cause de nullité absolue – Absence de mauvaise foi – Article 59, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-555/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of September 24, 2025, in Case T-555/24 between Bioalchemilla Srl and Alkemilla Eco Bio Cosmetic Srl (the applicants) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Paolo Morale as an intervening party. The case concerns the validity of the EU trademark “NAMALEI”. The applicants sought to annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which rejected their application for a declaration of invalidity of the NAMALEI trademark. The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
* **Introduction:** The applicants are seeking the annulment and reformation of the EUIPO’s decision.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Details the initial application for invalidity of the NAMALEI trademark, the goods and services covered, and the grounds for invalidity (bad faith and relative grounds for refusal).
* **Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the requests of the applicants, EUIPO, and the intervening party.
* **Law:**
* **Admissibility of the Plea Alleging Infringement of Article 6septies of the Paris Convention, Article 5(3)(b) of Directive 2015/2436, and Article 8(3) of Regulation 2017/1001:** The Court ruled this plea inadmissible because the applicants did not provide sufficient argumentation to support it.
* **The Plea Alleging Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001:** The Court examined whether the Board of Appeal was correct in concluding that the intervening party was not acting in bad faith when filing the trademark application. The Court analyzed the evidence presented by the applicants and concluded that it was insufficient to prove bad faith.
* **Costs:** The Court determined who should bear the costs of the proceedings.

The main provisions of the act are related to the assessment of bad faith in trademark registration. The Court emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming bad faith. It also clarifies that the intention of the trademark applicant is a subjective element that must be determined objectively, taking into account all relevant factual circumstances. The Court lists several factors that may be considered in the overall analysis of bad faith, such as the applicant’s knowledge of third-party use of a similar sign, the applicant’s intention to prevent the third party from continuing to use the sign, and the commercial logic behind filing the trademark application.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.XH v European Commission.Civil service – Officials – Investigation conducted by OLAF – Transfer for the duration of the investigation – Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations – Request for assistance – Request for the use of documents under Article 19 of the Staff Regulations – Action for annulment – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory measure – Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure – Partial inadmissibility – Interests of the service – Equivalence of posts – Liability.Case T-1083/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by an OLAF official, XH, against the European Commission. The case concerns a series of decisions related to an OLAF investigation in which XH was implicated, including a temporary transfer, requests for assistance and permission to use documents. The court ultimately dismisses XH’s action, finding most of her claims inadmissible or unfounded.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background and facts of the dispute, then outlines the forms of order sought by both parties. The main body of the judgment addresses the subject matter of the action, the admissibility of evidence presented by the applicant, the overall admissibility of the action, and finally, the merits of the claims for annulment and compensation. The claims for annulment are divided into several parts, each addressing a specific decision by OLAF. The judgment concludes with a decision on costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the admissibility of the claims. The court finds that challenges to ongoing OLAF investigations are inadmissible because they are preparatory measures and do not directly affect the applicant’s legal position. Similarly, claims against the refusal of assistance and the refusal to allow the use of documents are inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust the internal complaint procedures before bringing the action to court. The court does address the merits of the claim against the transfer decision, finding it to be within the institution’s discretion and in the interest of the service.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals SL v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-257/23.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used to treat multiple sclerosis. The case revolves around whether the European Commission was correct in granting an additional year of market protection for Tecfidera. This extension was based on the approval of a new therapeutic indication for the drug.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the legal basis for the action and the specific decision being challenged. It then provides background information on the dispute, including the history of Tecfidera’s marketing authorisation, previous legal challenges, and the relevant decisions made by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Commission. The judgment then details the arguments made by Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals (the applicant), the Commission (the defendant), and Biogen Netherlands (the intervener). Finally, the Court presents its legal reasoning and decision, annulling the Commission’s decision to grant the additional year of market protection.

The key provision at stake is Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which allows for an extension of marketing protection for a medicinal product by one year (up to a maximum of 11 years) if the marketing authorisation holder obtains an authorisation for one or more new therapeutic indications within the first eight years of the initial ten-year protection period. The Court found that the Commission incorrectly granted the additional year of protection because the authorisation for the new therapeutic indication was not obtained within the required eight-year timeframe. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the time limits in Article 14(11) is necessary to balance the objectives of promoting research into new therapies and encouraging the production of generic medicines.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Manufaktur Jörg Geiger GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark PriSecco – Earlier PDO ‘Prosecco’ – Relative ground for invalidity – Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Concept of ‘evocation’ of a PDO.Case T-406/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over an EU trade mark. The case revolves around an application for a declaration of invalidity against the EU word mark “PriSecco” based on its similarity to the earlier Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Prosecco”. The Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata ‘Prosecco’ (the “Prosecco” Consortium) argued that “PriSecco” evokes “Prosecco”, thus infringing on the protection afforded to the PDO. The General Court ultimately sided with the “Prosecco” Consortium, dismissing the action brought by Manufaktur Jörg Geiger GmbH, the owner of the “PriSecco” mark.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the application for the EU trade mark “PriSecco”, the goods it covers (non-alcoholic cocktails), and the grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity based on the PDO “Prosecco”. It then details the proceedings before the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) and the Board of Appeal, which initially declared the “PriSecco” mark invalid. The judgment proceeds to address the pleas raised by Manufaktur Jörg Geiger GmbH, which include alleged infringements of Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 103(2) of Regulation No 1308/2013. The Court systematically rejects each of these pleas, providing detailed reasoning for its conclusions. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs, ordering Manufaktur Jörg Geiger GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the “Prosecco” Consortium.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the “evocation” of a PDO. The Court emphasizes that “evocation” can occur even if the products are not similar. The key criterion is whether the contested mark triggers the image of the PDO product directly in the consumer’s mind. The Court also highlights the importance of visual and phonetic similarity between the signs and the potential for “evocation” even when the contested sign only partially incorporates the PDO. This judgment reinforces the broad protection afforded to PDOs and clarifies the scope of the “evocation” concept.

Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 24 septembre 2025.#Quality First GmbH contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative CRAVE NO MORE – Motif absolu de refus – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-33/25.

This is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of September 24, 2025, regarding the case T-33/25 between Quality First GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The court rejected Quality First GmbH’s application to register the figurative sign “CRAVE NO MORE” as a European Union trademark for goods in classes 1, 5, 29, 30 and 32. The court upheld the EUIPO’s decision that the sign lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the request for annulment and reformation of the EUIPO’s decision. It then details the background of the dispute, including the trademark application, the goods and services it covered, and the examiner’s initial rejection. The proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the pleas of the parties are also described. The court then assesses the merits of the case, addressing the applicant’s two pleas: violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctive character) and violation of the principle of equal treatment. The court rejects both pleas and dismisses the action. Finally, it rules on the costs, ordering each party to bear their own expenses.

The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the assessment of the distinctive character of the trademark. The court confirms that a trademark must allow consumers to identify the origin of the product and distinguish it from those of other companies. It also emphasizes that the assessment must be made in relation to the relevant public’s perception. The court found that the sign “CRAVE NO MORE” would be perceived by the English-speaking public as a promotional message rather than an indication of commercial origin, and that the graphic elements of the mark were not distinctive enough to overcome this lack of distinctiveness.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Kern Pharma, SL v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-351/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding a dispute over the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used for treating multiple sclerosis. The pharmaceutical company Kern Pharma challenged the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen Netherlands BV, the marketing authorisation holder for Tecfidera, an additional year of market protection. The court ultimately sided with Kern Pharma, annulling the Commission’s decision.

The judgment revolves around the interpretation and application of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which allows for an extension of market protection for a medicinal product by one year (up to a maximum of 11 years) if the marketing authorisation holder obtains authorisation for a new therapeutic indication within the first eight years of the initial ten-year period. The case’s background involves previous legal challenges regarding whether Tecfidera belonged to the same “global marketing authorisation” as another medicinal product, Fumaderm, which contained a different combination of active substances. This prior litigation impacted the timeline for the Commission’s decision on the additional year of market protection.

The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision, concluding that the condition for granting an additional year of marketing protection – obtaining authorisation for a new therapeutic indication within the first eight years – was not met. While Biogen applied for a variation to include a new therapeutic indication (for younger patients), the authorisation was granted after the initial eight-year period had already expired. The court rejected the Commission’s arguments that the previous legal challenges justified a more flexible interpretation of the deadline. The court emphasized that the Commission cannot rely on its obligation to comply with court judgments to alter the scope of existing legislation. The court upheld the principle that obtaining authorisation for a new therapeutic indication within the specified timeframe is a strict prerequisite for the additional year of market protection.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH v European Commission.Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the marketing authorisation for Tecfidera – Dimethyl fumarate, a medicinal product for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Article 266 TFEU.Case T-278/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera, used for treating multiple sclerosis. The pharmaceutical companies Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH (applicants) are challenging the European Commission’s decision to grant Biogen Netherlands BV (intervener), the marketing authorisation holder for Tecfidera, an additional year of market protection. The core of the dispute revolves around whether Tecfidera was eligible for this extension under Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which requires that a new therapeutic indication be authorised within the first eight years of the initial marketing authorisation.

The structure of the judgment involves an examination of the factual background, the arguments presented by the applicants and the Commission, and the legal reasoning applied by the General Court. The court considers whether the Commission correctly interpreted and applied Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004, particularly in light of a previous judgment (Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA) that had initially declared the implementing decision of 30 January 2014 inapplicable. The General Court ultimately annuls the Commission’s decision, concluding that the additional year of market protection was granted in violation of EU law.

The most important provision of the act is Article 14(11) of Regulation No 726/2004, which stipulates the conditions under which a medicinal product can benefit from an extension of its marketing protection period. The General Court’s interpretation of this article emphasizes the strict adherence to the eight-year deadline for obtaining authorisation for a new therapeutic indication. This judgment clarifies that failing to meet this deadline precludes the grant of an additional year of market protection, regardless of any intervening legal proceedings or complexities.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 24 septembre 2025.#KF contre Banque européenne d’investissement.#Fonction publique – Personnel de la BEI – Plainte pour harcèlement moral – Décision adoptée en exécution d’un arrêt du Tribunal – Nouvelle enquête administrative – Erreur de fait – Erreur d’appréciation – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-222/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of September 24, 2025, in Case T-222/24, KF v. European Investment Bank (EIB). The case concerns a complaint of moral harassment filed by KF, a former head of unit at the EIB, against the bank.

The judgment deals with KF’s request to annul the EIB’s decision of January 17, 2024, which partially rejected her complaint of moral harassment, and to obtain compensation for the moral prejudice she allegedly suffered as a result. The Tribunal partially annuls the EIB’s decision and orders the EIB to pay EUR 10,000 in damages.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the factual background, including KF’s employment history at the EIB, the incidents leading to her complaint, and previous legal actions.
2. **Forms of Order Sought:** This section summarizes the requests made by KF and the EIB to the Tribunal.
3. **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Tribunal analyzes the legal arguments and evidence presented by both parties.
4. **The plea for compensation:** The Tribunal analyses the request for compensation.
5. **Costs:** This section determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.

The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are:
* The Tribunal examines KF’s claims that the EIB violated the policy on respect for dignity in the workplace and made errors in assessing the facts related to the alleged harassment.
* The Tribunal focuses on whether the EIB made an error of assessment regarding the definition of “moral harassment” under the relevant EIB policy.
* The Tribunal assesses the alleged facts of harassment, including accusations of publicly criticizing KF, the evaluation report written by B upon KF’s return from sick leave, and management decisions regarding KF’s reintegration.
* The Tribunal annuls the EIB’s decision in part, finding that the EIB made errors of fact and assessment in concluding that B did not engage in moral harassment.
* The Tribunal orders the EIB to pay KF EUR 10,000 in compensation for the moral prejudice suffered due to the excessive length of the procedure and the uncertainty caused by the EIB’s illegal decision.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* The judgment clarifies the definition and scope of “moral harassment” under the EIB’s policy, emphasizing the need for repeated and sustained behaviors that undermine a person’s dignity and working conditions.
* The judgment highlights the importance of a thorough and impartial administrative investigation in cases of alleged harassment, with the aim of establishing the facts and taking appropriate measures.
* The judgment emphasizes the employer’s duty of care towards employees, particularly those returning from sick leave, and the need to consider their well-being and avoid unnecessary stress.
* The judgment confirms that the annulment of an illegal act can constitute sufficient compensation for moral prejudice, unless the applicant demonstrates additional harm that cannot be fully repaired by the annulment.
* The judgment clarifies that excessive delays in administrative procedures can cause moral prejudice and warrant compensation.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing two inverted chevrons – Action for annulment – Time limits for instituting proceedings – Admissibility – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-340/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case concerns an action for annulment brought by Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC against a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the genuine use of a figurative mark representing two inverted chevrons, owned by Hummel Holding A/S. The court had to decide whether EUIPO was right to confirm that Hummel Holding A/S had made genuine use of its trade mark.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the initial application for revocation filed by Barry’s Bootcamp against Hummel Holding’s international registration, the Cancellation Division’s decision to partially revoke the registration, and the subsequent appeal to the Board of Appeal, which was dismissed.
2. **Forms of order sought:** It lists the requests made by the applicant (Barry’s Bootcamp), EUIPO, and the intervener (Hummel Holding) regarding the annulment of the contested decision and the allocation of costs.
3. **Law:** It presents the applicant’s pleas, which include infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001.
4. **Admissibility of the action:** The Court first addresses the admissibility of the action, rejecting the intervener’s claim that the action was time-barred.
5. **The first plea, alleging infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001:** The Court then assesses the pleas on their merits, starting with the alleged infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
6. **The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001:** The Court then considers the alleged infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the genuine use of the trade mark. This plea is divided into three parts, addressing the hangtags, the decorative use of the mark, and the use of the mark in forms other than that registered.
7. **Costs:** Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs.

The main provisions of the act are:
* **Admissibility of the action:** The Court confirms that the action was brought within the applicable time limit, including the extension on account of distance provided for in Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure.
* **Obligation to state reasons:** The Court finds that the Board of Appeal provided sufficient reasoning for its decision, in compliance with Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
* **Genuine use of the trade mark:** The Court upholds the Board of Appeal’s finding that Hummel Holding had made genuine use of the contested international registration, in accordance with Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001.
* **Use in a form differing from that registered:** The Court confirms that the Board of Appeal was correct to take into account the use of the mark in forms differing in elements that did not alter its distinctive character, as provided for in Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001.

The most important provisions of this judgment are those concerning the assessment of genuine use of a trade mark, including the consideration of use in a form differing from that registered. The Court clarifies the criteria for determining whether variations in the use of a trade mark alter its distinctive character, which is essential for assessing whether such use can be considered genuine use for the purposes of maintaining the trade mark registration.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2025.Mowi Poland S.A. v European Commission.Public health – Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Point 3(e) of the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141 – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Concept of ‘frozen product’ – Lack of consultation with EFSA – Article 13 of Regulation No 853/2004.Case T-354/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the annulment of a provision in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141, specifically point 3(e) of the Annex. The case was brought by Mowi Poland S.A., a company specializing in smoked salmon processing, against the European Commission. The French Republic intervened in support of the Commission.

The core of the judgment revolves around the “stiffening” technique used by Mowi Poland S.A., which involves lowering the temperature of smoked salmon fillets to facilitate slicing. The contested provision in Regulation 2024/1141 sets a 96-hour time limit for maintaining fishery products at temperatures other than standard storage temperatures when using machines to slice or cut them. Mowi Poland S.A. sought annulment of this provision.

The General Court upheld Mowi Poland S.A.’s action and annulled the contested provision, finding that the Commission failed to consult the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before adopting it, as required by Article 13 of Regulation No 853/2004. The court determined that the provision could have a significant impact on public health, necessitating EFSA consultation. The court also addressed the admissibility of the action, confirming Mowi Poland S.A.’s standing to bring proceedings and its interest in doing so.

The most important aspect of this judgment is the emphasis on the requirement for the Commission to consult EFSA on matters related to food hygiene that could significantly impact public health. The court found that the 96-hour time limit imposed by the contested provision was a new obligation that required scientific assessment and that the Commission had not adequately justified the time limit or consulted EFSA on it. This highlights the importance of scientific advice in underpinning EU legislation on food hygiene.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2025 (Extracts).Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing eight inverted black chevrons – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Cross-claim – Subject matter of the action – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility.Case T-32/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC and Hummel Holding A/S concerning an EU trade mark. The case revolves around the genuine use of a figurative mark representing eight inverted black chevrons, which is owned by Hummel Holding A/S. Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC applied for revocation of the mark, arguing that it had not been put to genuine use.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses an action brought by Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC against a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The Board of Appeal had upheld a decision of the Cancellation Division, which had partially revoked Hummel’s international registration for the figurative mark. The court examines two pleas raised by Barry’s Bootcamp: (1) infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (failure to state reasons) and (2) infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (genuine use of the mark). The court also considers a cross-claim by Hummel, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that genuine use had not been established for certain goods.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* **Genuine Use of the Mark:** The court analyzes whether Hummel provided sufficient evidence of genuine use of the mark in the European Union for the goods and services for which it was registered. This includes assessing the nature, extent, place, and time of use.
* **Use in a Different Form:** The court considers whether the use of the mark in a form differing from the registered form (e.g., reversed color scheme) alters the distinctive character of the mark. It applies Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, which allows for variations that do not alter the distinctive character.
* **Decorative vs. Trade Mark Use:** The court examines whether the use of the mark on clothing items is perceived as an indicator of commercial origin or merely as a decorative element.
* **Admissibility of Cross-claim:** The court assesses the admissibility of Hummel’s cross-claim, considering whether it is directed against the same decision as the main action and whether Hummel has an interest in bringing proceedings.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important provisions for understanding this judgment are those related to the assessment of genuine use of a trade mark, particularly Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001. The judgment provides guidance on how to determine whether a mark has been put to genuine use, what evidence is required to prove such use, and how to assess whether variations in the form of the mark alter its distinctive character. The court’s analysis of decorative versus trade mark use is also important for understanding the scope of protection afforded to trade marks.

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

The notice itself is brief, simply stating the fact of the Protocol’s entry into force and referencing the Official Journal (OJ) where the full text of the amending Protocol can be found (OJ L 148, 8.6.2023, p. 3). It does not contain a detailed structure, provisions, or changes. To understand these aspects, one would need to consult the referenced Official Journal.

The most important aspect of this notice is the date of entry into force: September 15, 2025. This is the date from which the amended Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies becomes legally binding for the WTO members that have ratified it.

Decision No 1/2025 of the EU-Moldova Association Committee in Trade Configuration of 19 September 2025 on the reduction and elimination of customs duties pursuant to Article 147(4) of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part [2025/1961]

Here’s a breakdown of Decision No 1/2025 of the EU-Moldova Association Committee in Trade Configuration:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This decision aims to deepen trade liberalization between the EU and Moldova by reducing or eliminating customs duties on various goods. It establishes a new Annex (XV-E) to the existing Association Agreement, which outlines specific commitments from both parties regarding the reduction or elimination of customs duties. This decision reflects the increased trade between the EU and Moldova and supports Moldova’s ongoing accession negotiations with the EU by aligning its legislation with EU standards. It also provides a mechanism for safeguard measures if serious economic difficulties arise due to increased imports.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** Adds Annex XV-E to the Association Agreement, which details the specific commitments for reducing or eliminating customs duties. This new annex supersedes the previous Annexes XV-A, XV-B, and XV-D, which previously governed customs duties.
* **Article 2:** Mandates a review in 2027 to assess the agreed-upon reductions and eliminations of customs duties. This review will consider further liberalization in light of Moldova’s accession progress, production capacities, trade patterns, quota usage, and specific sensitivities on both sides.
* **Article 3:** States that the decision is equally authentic in all official languages of the EU.
* **Article 4:** Sets the entry into force of the decision as the fifteenth day following its adoption.

**Annex XV-E is further divided into:**

* **Article 1:** States that each party will reduce or eliminate customs duties on originating goods of the other party according to Appendix A. It also clarifies that if Appendix A is suspended, the customs duty rates from Annexes XV-A, XV-B, and XV-D will apply.
* **Article 2:** Requires Moldova to align its legislation with specific EU production standards listed in Appendix B by December 31, 2027 (with an exception for Regulation (EU) 2017/625, extending the deadline to December 31, 2028). It also establishes reporting requirements for Moldova to demonstrate its progress in aligning with EU legislation. The EU can suspend preferences if Moldova fails to meet its obligations.
* **Article 3:** Allows either party to take safeguard measures if serious economic, societal, or environmental difficulties arise due to increased imports resulting from the additional liberalization. It sets out a notification and consultation process before such measures can be implemented.

**Appendices:**

* **Appendix A:** Lists products subject to annual duty-free tariff-rate quotas (for the Union) and products subject to entry price (for which the ad valorem component of the import duty is exempted for the Union). It also includes a schedule of concessions for the Republic of Moldova, specifying the Most Favored Nation (MFN) applied duty and category for various products.
* **Appendix B:** Lists the specific EU production standards that Moldova must align its legislation with, including regulations and directives related to plant protection products, sustainable use of pesticides, official controls, and protection of waters against pollution from nitrates.

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

* **** Businesses involved in trade between the EU and Moldova should carefully review Appendix A of Annex XV-E to understand the new customs duty rates and tariff-rate quotas applicable to their products. This will allow them to take advantage of the reduced or eliminated duties.
* Moldovan producers should pay close attention to Appendix B of Annex XV-E, as it outlines the EU production standards they must meet to benefit from the trade liberalization measures. Compliance with these standards is essential for maintaining access to the EU market.
* Both EU and Moldovan entities should be aware of the safeguard measures outlined in Article 3 of Annex XV-E. These measures could be invoked if increased imports cause serious difficulties in either market.
* **** The decision is particularly relevant for Ukrainian producers and exporters who may be considering Moldova as a transit country or a base for exporting goods to the EU, given the enhanced trade relationship between Moldova and the EU.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 090/25/COL of 11 June 2025 on sale of a property in Lørenskog (Norway) [2025/1950]

This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) regarding a case of potential unlawful State aid granted by the Norwegian municipality of Lørenskog to Masserud Utvikling AS, a real estate development company. The case revolves around the sale of a property by the Municipality to Masserud and the subsequent failure by the Municipality to claim payment for the property.

The decision is structured as follows:

* **I. FACTS:** This section outlines the background of the case, including the initial complaint, the procedure followed by ESA, and a description of the measures in question. It details the agreements between the Municipality and Masserud, the timeline of events, and relevant information about both entities.
* **II. ASSESSMENT:** This is the core of the decision, where ESA assesses whether the measures constitute State aid according to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. It examines whether the measures involve State resources, are imputable to the State, are selective, and confer an advantage on Masserud. The assessment also considers whether the measures distort competition and affect trade between Contracting Parties.
* **III. CONCLUSION:** Based on the assessment, ESA concludes that the failure by the Municipality to enforce its claim for payment constitutes unlawful State aid.
* **IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:** ESA notes that the Norwegian authorities failed to notify the measure to ESA, violating their obligations under Protocol 3 SCA.
* **V. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID:** ESA finds that the aid is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, as it does not meet the criteria for any of the derogations under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
* **VI. RECOVERY:** ESA orders the Kingdom of Norway to recover the unlawful aid from Masserud Utvikling AS, including interest, and sets deadlines for the recovery process and for informing ESA of the measures taken.

The most important provisions of the act are:

* **Article 2:** This article declares that the granting of public land free of charge to Masserud Utvikling AS, due to the Municipality’s failure to enforce its claim, constitutes unlawful State aid amounting to NOK 7,709,058, which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
* **Article 3:** This article mandates the Kingdom of Norway to take all necessary measures to recover the aid referred to in Article 2 from Masserud Utvikling AS.
* **Article 4:** This article sets the deadlines for the recovery process, requiring it to be completed by 11 October 2025, and specifies that the aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date it was at the disposal of Masserud Utvikling AS.

This decision essentially determines that the Norwegian municipality of Lørenskog provided illegal state aid to a private company by not collecting payment for a property sale, and it orders Norway to recover that amount from the company.

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as of 1 July 2025 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004)

This notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) announces the applicable interest rates for state aid recovery and the reference/discount rates for the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) effective from July 1, 2025. These rates are crucial for calculating the financial burden on companies that have received illegal state aid and for determining the advantage conferred by aid measures.

The notice is structured as a simple table presenting the base rates for each of the three EFTA countries. It explicitly references the methodology used for calculating these base rates, pointing to the relevant sections of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and a specific ESA Decision from 2008 that amended those guidelines. It also clarifies that the applicable reference rates are derived by adding appropriate margins to these base rates, as defined in the State Aid Guidelines.

The most important aspect of this notice is the actual base rates themselves: 9.27% for Iceland, 1.09% for Liechtenstein, and 4.71% for Norway. These rates are the foundation for calculating the overall reference and recovery rates, which directly impact businesses and governments involved in state aid cases within the EFTA region.

Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2025 in Case E-25/24 – Dartride AS v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (Staten v/Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet), (State liability – Infringements attributable to a national court – Notion of court adjudicating at last instance – Effective judicial protection – Homogeneity)

This is a judgment from the EFTA Court concerning the conditions under which a state can be held liable for damages caused by decisions of its national courts that infringe EEA (European Economic Area) law. The judgment clarifies when a national court is considered to be adjudicating at last instance and what constitutes a manifest infringement of EEA law that could trigger state liability. It also addresses the compatibility of national legislation that attempts to limit state liability in such cases with EEA law.

The judgment is structured around two main points. The first point establishes that EEA states can be liable for damages resulting from infringements of EEA law by national courts adjudicating at last instance, but only in exceptional cases where the court has manifestly infringed EEA law. It also clarifies that when all domestic remedies have been exhausted, the condition of a court adjudicating at last instance is met. The second point states that EEA law does not allow national legislation to generally exclude state liability for infringements by courts adjudicating at last instance by imposing additional conditions such as requiring the decision to be quashed or amended, lapsed decisions preventing timely appeals, or a public official being convicted of a criminal offence related to the decision.

The most important provisions of this judgment are those that define the circumstances under which a state can be held liable for the decisions of its courts. Specifically, the requirement of a “manifest infringement” of EEA law sets a high bar for establishing state liability. Additionally, the judgment clarifies that national laws cannot impose additional conditions that would effectively shield the state from liability in cases of infringement of EEA law by national courts.

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Court of Appeal, dated 30 April 2025 in the case of Dommages Aréas v Gable Insurance AG in Konkurs (Case E-8/25)

This document is a request from the Princely Court of Appeal to the EFTA Court for an Advisory Opinion regarding the interpretation of the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC) in the context of an insurance claim against Gable Insurance AG, which is in bankruptcy. The core issue revolves around whether a claim by an injured party, who has a direct right of action against the insurer and is subrogated to a fourth party, still maintains precedence as an insurance claim under Article 268(1)(g) of the Directive. A secondary question asks whether legal costs incurred in asserting such a claim should also be considered an insurance claim with the same precedence.

The document is structured as a formal request for an advisory opinion, presenting two specific questions for the EFTA Court to address. The first question concerns the precedence of an insurance claim in the context of statutory subrogation, while the second question addresses whether legal costs associated with the claim should also be granted precedence. There are no direct changes compared to previous versions, as this is an initial request for interpretation.

The most important provision for practical use lies in the interpretation of Article 268(1)(g) and Article 275(1) of the Solvency II Directive. The EFTA Court’s opinion will clarify whether the precedence of insurance claims extends to injured parties with direct rights of action and statutory subrogation, and whether legal costs are included within the scope of prioritized claims. This clarification will have significant implications for the treatment of insurance claims in cross-border insolvency proceedings within the EEA.

Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2025 in Case E-26/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1118 – Regulatory technical standards)

This is a judgment by the EFTA Court concerning Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1118 into its national law, as required by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the EEA Agreement, specifically Article 7, regarding the implementation of EU legislation. The Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations. Iceland is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

The judgment is structured simply: it identifies the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the action (failure to fulfill obligations under the EEA Agreement). It then states the Court’s decision, which declares Iceland’s failure to incorporate the specified EU regulation into its legal order and orders Iceland to pay the costs. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is an initial judgment on the matter.

The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1118 into its internal legal order. This regulation concerns regulatory technical standards for resolution authorities to estimate capital requirements for resolution entities. This means Iceland is not following the common rules in the EEA, which can have consequences for financial stability and cross-border cooperation in financial matters within the EEA.

Review of the EU legislation for 25/09/2025

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1493

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/1930

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1909

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1908

General Court Judgments on Tecfidera (Multiple Cases)

General Court Judgment on Barry’s Bootcamp vs. Hummel

General Court Judgment on Digi International, Inc. vs. Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd

General Court Judgment on AQ vs. ECHA

General Court Judgment on Cham Wings Airlines LLC vs. Council

General Court Judgments on Bogoljub Karić v Council

General Court Judgment on Al-Aqeelah Takaful Insurance Company vs. Council

General Court Judgment on Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) vs. Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

General Court Judgment on BTFY Trademark

General Court Judgment on “Confrasilvas” Trademark

General Court Judgment on Sanofi BV vs. European Commission

General Court Judgment on BARRY’S BOOTCAMP HOLDINGS LLC vs. EUIPO

General Court Judgment on Mowi Poland S.A. v European Commission

EU Tribunal (Fifth Chamber) Judgment in Case T-552/24, Johan Lami v Frontex

General Court Judgement on Aliud Pharma GmbH vs European Commission

General Court Judgement on Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL vs EUIPO

General Court Judgment on BIOALCHEMILLA SRL vs EUIPO

General Court Judgment on XH vs European Commission

General Court Judgment on Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH vs European Commission

General Court Judgement on KF vs European Investment Bank (EIB)

EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-20/24, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision in Case 80078 – Norway – Unlawful State Aid

EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on State Aid Recovery Rates

EFTA Court on Conditions for State Liability

EFTA Advisory Opinion on Insurance Claims Against Gable Insurance AG

World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies: Entry into Force

Decision No 1/2025 of the EU-Moldova Association Committee in Trade Configuration

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1930 of 15 May 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Dechlorane Plus

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1908 of 24 September 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 as regards the classification of the substance fluralaner with respect to its maximum residue limit in foodstuffs of animal origin

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 090/25/COL of 11 June 2025 on sale of a property in Lørenskog (Norway) [2025/1950]

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Court of Appeal, dated 30 April 2025 in the case of Dommages Aréas v Gable Insurance AG in Konkurs (Case E-8/25)

Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2025 in Case E-26/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1118 – Regulatory technical standards)

You May Also Like

Review of the EU legislation for 13/01/2026

Review of the EU legislation for 15/03/2025