Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050
This regulation provides the technical details for how very large online platforms (VLOPs) and search engines (VLOSEs) will share data with vetted researchers, as mandated by the Digital Services Act (DSA). It sets up a framework to study systemic risks within the EU and evaluate the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures. The regulation outlines the DSA data access portal and specifies roles and responsibilities for processing personal data within it, emphasizing data minimization and security. It details the process for researchers to request data, the information required, and the timelines for Digital Services Coordinators to assess these requests. The regulation also allows for mediation to resolve disputes and sets conditions for data sharing, ensuring compliance with GDPR.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2034
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2189 concerning the authorization for the biocidal product “ClearKlens wipes based on IPA”. The changes involve updating administrative information related to the authorization holder and manufacturer addresses to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2027
This regulation shortens the approval period for the active substance penthiopyrad, used in plant protection products. The expiration date for penthiopyrad in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is changed from 31 October 2027 to 31 October 2025, meaning Member States must withdraw authorizations for plant protection products containing penthiopyrad by this date.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013
This regulation mandates the registration of imports of terephthalic acid from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. This registration is a prerequisite for potentially applying anti-dumping duties retroactively, depending on the outcome of the ongoing anti-dumping investigation. Importers should be aware of this requirement, as it could affect their future financial liabilities.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016
This regulation addresses inaccuracies in the Dutch, German, and Slovenian language versions of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, which concerns health rules for animal by-products. The corrections ensure the accurate implementation of health rules regarding the treatment of milk.
CJEU Judgment on Food Information for Consumers
The CJEU clarified that Article 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128 explicitly prohibits repeating information from the mandatory nutrition declaration on the labeling of food for special medical purposes. This ensures that the labeling provides additional information about the properties and characteristics of the food, rather than simply repeating the nutrition declaration in a different format.
CJEU Judgment on Working Time
The CJEU ruled that travel time to and from work sites in company vehicles, at the employer’s direction, constitutes “working time” under EU law. During this travel, the workers are deemed to be at the employer’s disposal, carrying out their duties, and not free to use their time for personal interests.
CJEU Judgment on VAT and Electronically Supplied Services
The Court clarified that Article 28 of the VAT Directive applies to electronically supplied services through platforms like app stores. The fact that the end customer receives an order confirmation identifying the developer as the supplier and stating the VAT rate of the developer’s country does not automatically preclude the application of Article 28. The place of supply of the fictitious service from the developer to the platform is determined according to the general rule for B2B supplies, as per Article 44 of the VAT Directive.
CJEU Judgment on Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters
The CJEU ruled that a court in a Member State has jurisdiction to hear a claim for compensation against an air carrier by a company that has acquired the passenger’s claim, provided that the court is located in the place where the services were provided or should have been provided under the original contract of carriage.
CJEU Judgment on Jurisdiction Agreements Post-Brexit
The judgment confirms that Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation applies even when both parties are domiciled outside the EU. The ruling provides legal certainty for agreements concluded before the end of the Brexit transition period. These agreements remain valid even if legal proceedings are initiated after Brexit.
CJEU Judgment on State Aid and Language Errors in EU Regulations
While the CJEU affirms the retroactive effect of the correcting regulation to ensure uniform application of EU law, it prioritizes the protection of those who legitimately relied on the incorrect version when receiving aid. This highlights the importance of accurate translations in EU law and provides guidance on how to handle situations where discrepancies arise between different language versions of EU legislation.
CJEU Judgment on Consumer Credit Agreements and Unfair Contract Terms
Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48 does not prevent national laws that allow a consumer to assign their claim to a non-consumer third party. Consumers can transfer their rights to companies that specialize in recovering such claims. Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 do not require a national court to automatically examine the fairness of the assignment agreement itself when the dispute is between the assignee company and the original creditor (e.g., the bank).
CJEU Judgment on Waste Management and Failure to Comply
Greece is found to be in breach of Article 260(1) TFEU for failing to implement the Court’s 2014 judgment. Greece is ordered to pay a daily penalty of EUR 12,500 from the date of the judgment until the 2014 judgment is implemented and a lump sum of EUR 5,500,000.
CJEU Judgment on the European Arrest Warrant
The CJEU ruled that the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ covers proceedings where a national court orders the conversion of an unserved term of police supervision into a custodial sentence due to a breach of conditions. The person concerned must be able to fully exercise his or her rights of defence.
Notice on the EU-Bangladesh Air Services Agreement
The Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services came into effect on June 30, 2025.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050 of 1 July 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down the technical conditions and procedures under which providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines are to share data with vetted researchers
This is an analysis of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050.
1. **Essence of the Act:** This regulation supplements Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act or DSA) by establishing the technical conditions and procedures for providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) to share data with vetted researchers. It aims to facilitate research on systemic risks within the Union and to assess the effectiveness of measures mitigating those risks, ensuring a consistent, secure, and efficient data access process across all Digital Services Coordinators. The regulation also seeks to balance the need for data access with the protection of confidentiality, data security, and personal data.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured into five chapters:
* **Chapter I (General Provisions):** Defines the subject matter and key definitions, such as ‘data access application,’ ‘data access process,’ ‘applicant researcher,’ ‘principal researcher,’ ‘data provider,’ ‘reasoned request,’ ‘amendment request,’ and ‘secure processing environment.’
* **Chapter II (Information and Contact Obligations):** Establishes the DSA data access portal, its functions, and interoperability with the AGORA system. It also specifies the roles and responsibilities for processing personal data within the portal, emphasizing data minimization and security. Additionally, it mandates the establishment of dedicated points of contact by Digital Services Coordinators and data providers to provide information and support on the data access process. It also requires data providers to make available DSA data catalogues.
* **Chapter III (Requirements for Formulating and Processing of Reasoned Requests):** Sets out the procedures and prerequisites for formulating reasoned requests for data access, including timelines, required elements, and considerations for data protection and security. It details the process for Digital Services Coordinators to assess data access applications, determine appropriate access modalities, and handle amendment requests from data providers. The chapter also introduces the possibility of mediation and independent expert consultation to resolve disputes and inform decision-making.
* **Chapter IV (Conditions for Providing the Data Requested to Vetted Researchers):** Specifies the conditions for data sharing and documentation, including notifications to the Digital Services Coordinator, provision of metadata, and limitations on imposing data management requirements on researchers. It also addresses the processing of personal data, ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).
* **Chapter V (Final Provisions):** Contains the entry into force provision.
**Main changes compared to previous versions:**
As this is a delegated regulation supplementing the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065), it does not have previous versions in the traditional sense. Instead, it builds upon the framework established by the DSA, providing specific details on the data access process outlined in Article 40 of the DSA.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **DSA Data Access Portal (Article 3):** The establishment of a central digital portal is crucial for managing the data access process. Researchers and data providers must create accounts, and Digital Services Coordinators must ensure interoperability with the AGORA system.
* **Data Catalogues (Article 6(4)(c)):** Data providers are required to create and maintain DSA data catalogues, which describe the data assets available for research purposes. These catalogues should be easily accessible on their online interfaces and regularly updated.
* **Formulating Reasoned Requests (Articles 7 & 8):** Digital Services Coordinators have a defined timeframe (80 working days) to decide whether a reasoned request can be formulated. They must consider prerequisites such as researcher affiliation, independence from commercial interests, funding information, and a detailed description of the data requested.
* **Access Modalities (Article 9):** The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment determines the modalities for data access, considering data security, confidentiality, and personal data protection. They may require the use of secure processing environments.
* **Amendment Requests and Mediation (Articles 12 & 13):** Data providers can submit amendment requests if they cannot provide the data or if it poses significant vulnerabilities. Mediation is available as a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism.
* **Data Sharing and Documentation (Article 15):** Data providers must notify the Digital Services Coordinator when access is granted or terminated and provide researchers with necessary metadata and documentation. They should not impose unnecessary data management restrictions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2034 of 9 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2189 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ClearKlens wipes based on IPA
This is a description of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2034, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2189 regarding the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product “ClearKlens wipes based on IPA”. The new regulation updates the administrative information related to the authorisation holder and manufacturer addresses for the biocidal product “ClearKlens wipes based on IPA”. It ensures that the changes are compliant with existing regulations and do not affect the product’s safety or efficacy.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2189 with a new text containing the updated summary of biocidal product characteristics. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides detailed information on the biocidal product, including trade names, authorisation holder details, manufacturer details, active substance information, product composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorised uses, and general directions for use.
The most important provisions of this regulation relate to the updated administrative information for the biocidal product “ClearKlens wipes based on IPA”. Specifically, the changes to the authorisation holder’s and manufacturer’s addresses are crucial for maintaining accurate records and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. The revised summary of biocidal product characteristics in the annex provides a consolidated version that includes these administrative changes, along with minor editorial and layout updates, enhancing clarity for users and interested parties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2027 of 9 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the approval period of the active substance penthiopyrad
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2027 concerns the active substance penthiopyrad, which is used in plant protection products. The regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 to shorten the approval period for penthiopyrad. The reason for this change is that the applicant no longer supports the renewal of the approval for this substance.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended as set out in the annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex replaces the expiration date for penthiopyrad in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 from 31 October 2027 to 31 October 2025. This regulation modifies a previous extension of the approval period granted by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/787.
The most important provision is the change of the expiration date for penthiopyrad to 31 October 2025. This means that Member States must withdraw authorizations for plant protection products containing penthiopyrad by this date.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013 of 8 October 2025 making imports of terephthalic acid originating in the Republic of Korea and Mexico subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013 concerns the registration of imports of terephthalic acid originating in the Republic of Korea and Mexico. The regulation is introduced as a measure to potentially allow for the retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the ongoing investigation determines that such duties are warranted.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the basis for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of the specified terephthalic acid from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. The terephthalic acid is defined by its purity, CAS number, CUS number, and CN code. The registration requirement will expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not have previous versions.
The most important provision is Article 1, which mandates the registration of specific terephthalic acid imports from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. This registration is a prerequisite for potentially applying anti-dumping duties retroactively, depending on the outcome of the anti-dumping investigation. Importers of terephthalic acid from these countries should be aware of this registration requirement, as it could affect their future financial liabilities.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016 of 8 October 2025 correcting certain language versions of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016 addresses inaccuracies found in specific language versions of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, which implements Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 concerning health rules for animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption. The regulation specifically targets errors in the Dutch, German, and Slovenian versions of Annex X, Chapter II, Section 4, Part I, points B(1.2) and B(1.4), which pertain to the treatments required for milk. The identified errors alter the intended meaning of these provisions.
The Regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the issues identified, followed by two articles. Article 1 stipulates the corrections to be made in the Dutch, German, and Slovenian language versions of the specified sections of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Article 2 states that the Regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms its binding and directly applicable nature in all Member States.
The main provision of this regulation is the correction of errors in the Dutch, German, and Slovenian language versions of Annex X to Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, Chapter II, Section 4, Part I, points B(1.2) and B(1.4). These corrections ensure the accurate implementation of health rules regarding the treatment of milk within the context of animal by-products and derived products.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Nestlé Sverige AB v Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Food safety – Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – Provision of food information to consumers – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 – Food for special medical purposes – Specific information requirements – Mandatory nutrition declaration – Article 5(2)(g) – Additional mandatory particulars – Article 6(2) – Prohibition of the repetition on the labelling of information contained in the mandatory nutrition declaration.Case C-315/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU regulations on food information for consumers, specifically regarding food for special medical purposes. The central issue is whether certain nutrition information displayed on the packaging of food for special medical purposes constitutes an acceptable description of the product’s properties or a prohibited repetition of information already present in the mandatory nutrition declaration. The case originated from a dispute in Sweden between Nestlé Sverige AB and a local environmental committee regarding the labeling of certain food products.
The judgment clarifies the relationship between Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (on food information to consumers), Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 (on food intended for specific groups), and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 (supplementing Regulation No 609/2013 regarding food for special medical purposes). It interprets Articles 5(2)(g) and 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128, ruling that displaying the energy value and nutrient amounts per portion on the front of the packaging, when the mandatory nutrition declaration on the back lists the same information per 100g/100ml, is a prohibited repetition and not an additional description of the product’s properties.
The key provision is that Article 6(2) of Delegated Regulation 2016/128 explicitly prohibits repeating information from the mandatory nutrition declaration on the labeling of food for special medical purposes. This is a derogation from the general rule in Regulation No 1169/2011, which allows for some repetition of nutrition information. The court emphasizes that food for special medical purposes has specific requirements and is intended for vulnerable consumers under medical supervision, thus requiring clear and non-misleading labeling. The judgment ensures that the labeling provides additional information about the properties and characteristics of the food, rather than simply repeating the nutrition declaration in a different format.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Sindicat de Treballadores i Treballadors de les Administracions i els Serveis Publics (STAS – IV) v Valenciana D’ Estrategies i Recursos per a la Sostenibilitat Ambiental SA (VAERSA).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Point 1 of Article 2 – Concept of ‘working time’ – Works to improve protected natural areas – Time spent by workers travelling between a fixed point of departure and natural areas – Inclusion of that travelling time in the working time of those workers.Case C-110/24.
This judgment addresses the crucial issue of whether travel time to and from work sites should be considered as “working time” under EU law, specifically Directive 2003/88/EC. The case involves biodiversity workers in Spain who travel from a designated base to various natural areas to perform their duties. The court is asked to clarify if the time spent traveling in company vehicles, at the employer’s direction, counts as working time.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, which defines “working time.” It emphasizes that “working time” includes any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal, and carrying out their activity or duties. The Court refers to previous case law, highlighting that “working time” and “rest period” are mutually exclusive concepts under EU law. The Court analyses whether the three elements of the definition of “working time” are fulfilled in the present case: (1) whether the worker is carrying out his activity or duties; (2) whether the worker is at the employer’s disposal; and (3) whether the worker is working during the period under consideration.
The Court concludes that the travel time in this specific scenario *does* constitute working time. The key factors are that the workers are required to travel as a group, at a time dictated by the employer, in a company vehicle, from a specific location determined by the employer, to the place where they perform their essential work. During this travel, the workers are deemed to be at the employer’s disposal, carrying out their duties, and not free to use their time for personal interests. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting workers’ rights regarding working time and rest periods within the EU.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona v XYRALITY GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 28 – Taking part in a supply of services – Articles 44 and 45 – Place of supply of services – Article 203 – VAT entered on an invoice – Electronically supplied services – App store – ‘In-app’ purchases.Case C-101/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) regarding the supply of electronically supplied services, specifically “in-app” purchases made through an app store. The case revolves around a German company, Xyrality, that developed game applications and sold in-app purchases through an app store operated by an Irish company, X. The central question is whether Xyrality or X should be considered the supplier of these services for VAT purposes.
The judgment clarifies the application of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, which deals with situations where a taxable person acts in their own name but on behalf of another person. It also addresses the place of supply of services and the liability for VAT when VAT is mentioned on an invoice.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Article 28 Interpretation:** The Court clarifies that Article 28 of the VAT Directive applies to electronically supplied services through platforms like app stores. The fact that the end customer receives an order confirmation identifying the developer (Xyrality) as the supplier and stating the VAT rate of the developer’s country does not automatically preclude the application of Article 28. The key factor is who controls the supply of services.
* **Place of Supply:** The Court confirms that when Article 28 applies, creating a legal fiction of two supplies (from the developer to the platform and from the platform to the customer), the place of supply of the *fictitious* service from the developer to the platform is determined according to the general rule for B2B (business-to-business) supplies, as per Article 44 of the VAT Directive.
* **VAT Liability:** The Court rules on Article 203 of the VAT Directive, stating that the developer (Xyrality) is not liable for VAT in its Member State solely because the app store’s order confirmations identified it as the supplier and stated the German VAT rate. Article 203 is linked to the right to deduct VAT, and in this case, the services were supplied to non-taxable persons (end customers), so there is no risk of undue VAT deduction.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 28 Applicability:** Businesses supplying digital services through platforms should carefully assess their role and the platform’s role in the supply chain to determine who is the actual supplier for VAT purposes. The presence of the supplier’s name on order confirmations is not decisive.
* **Place of Supply Rules:** When Article 28 applies, it creates a “deemed” supply between the original supplier (developer) and the intermediary (platform). The place of this deemed supply is determined by Article 44 (B2B rule), meaning the location of the platform.
* **VAT on Invoices:** Article 203 does not automatically make a business liable for VAT simply because its name and VAT rate appear on a document. The key is whether there is a risk of incorrect VAT deduction.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) – Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract – Determination of the court with jurisdiction – Contract of carriage by air concluded between a consumer and a trader – Passenger’s claim for compensation arising from a delayed flight – Assignment of that claim to a collection agency – Claim for compensation brought by the assignee against the air carrier before the court for the place of the aircraft’s departure – Place of performance of the obligation in question – Place in a Member State where, under the contract of carriage, the services were provided or should have been provided.Case C-551/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, specifically concerning jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. The case revolves around a dispute between Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and AirHelp Germany GmbH (AirHelp), where AirHelp, having acquired a passenger’s claim for flight delay compensation, sued Lufthansa in a Polish court. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether the Polish court had jurisdiction under the Regulation, considering the claim was based on an assignment agreement rather than a direct contract between AirHelp and Lufthansa.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, focusing on “matters relating to a contract” and the “place of performance of the obligation in question.” It also briefly touches upon Article 7(5) regarding disputes arising from the operations of a branch or agency, but ultimately deems the question regarding this article inadmissible due to a lack of factual basis in the referring court’s request. The court emphasizes that the special jurisdiction rule is based on the close connection between the contract and the court, not on protecting the weaker party.
The most important provision clarified is the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012. The CJEU ruled that a court in a Member State has jurisdiction to hear a claim for compensation against an air carrier by a company that has acquired the passenger’s claim, provided that the court is located in the place where the services were provided or should have been provided under the original contract of carriage. This means that even though AirHelp didn’t directly contract with Lufthansa, the Polish court (where the flight originated) could have jurisdiction. The fact that the claim was assigned doesn’t negate the applicability of this rule, as the underlying obligation stems from the original contract of carriage.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Cabris lnvestments Ltd v Revetas Capital Advisors LLP.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Scope – Article 25 – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Parties to a contract established in the same third State – Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to settle disputes arising from that contract – International element – Consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union.Case C-540/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) concerning jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The case specifically addresses the impact of Brexit on jurisdiction agreements.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the request for a preliminary ruling and the parties involved.
2. **Legal Context:** Details the relevant EU law, including Article 50(3) TEU, the Withdrawal Agreement, the Brussels Convention, and the Brussels I bis Regulation. Key articles discussed are Article 25 (agreement conferring jurisdiction) and Articles 68-70 (relationship with other instruments) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
3. **Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred:** Describes the factual background of the case in Austria, where two UK companies had a contract with a jurisdiction clause specifying the Commercial Court in Vienna. The referring court (Handelsgericht Wien) questions whether it has jurisdiction after Brexit, considering the jurisdiction agreement.
4. **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** The CJEU addresses whether Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation applies to agreements where parties in a third country (UK post-Brexit) designate a Member State’s court.
5. **The Court’s Ruling:** The CJEU concludes that Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation *does* cover situations where two parties in the UK agree, via a jurisdiction agreement during the transition period, on the jurisdiction of a Member State’s court, even if the court is seised after the transition period.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation:** This article is central to the judgment. It states that if parties, regardless of their domicile, agree that a court of a Member State has jurisdiction, that court has jurisdiction. This is a change from the previous Brussels I Regulation, which required at least one party to be domiciled in a Member State.
* **International Element:** The Court emphasizes that for the Brussels I bis Regulation to apply, there must be an international element. The Court clarifies that the existence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State, even though the contracting parties are domiciled in a third State, raises a question relating to the determination of the international jurisdiction of the courts and that such a situation therefore has the necessary international element.
* **Brexit and the Transition Period:** The judgment clarifies that the end of the Brexit transition period does not negate the application of Article 25(1) to jurisdiction agreements concluded during the transition period.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
* **Broad Application of Article 25(1):** The judgment confirms that Article 25(1) applies even when both parties are domiciled outside the EU. This is significant for contracts involving parties in third countries that designate an EU Member State’s court.
* **Validity of Jurisdiction Agreements Post-Brexit:** The ruling provides legal certainty for agreements concluded before the end of the Brexit transition period. These agreements remain valid even if legal proceedings are initiated after Brexit.
* **International Element:** The judgment clarifies what constitutes an “international element” for the purposes of the Brussels I bis Regulation, particularly in the context of jurisdiction agreements.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025.On Air Media Professionals SRL v Agenția pentru Întreprinderi Mici şi Mijlocii Iași.Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 – Exemption for certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market – Translation error in the Romanian language version of that regulation – Legal effects of the regulation correcting that error – Possibility of recovering aid that was granted before the correction in compliance with the conditions set out in the version of the regulation containing the translation error – Protection of legitimate expectations – Legal certainty.Case C-416/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning State aid and the interpretation of EU regulations, specifically Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (the GBER) and Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/452 (the correcting regulation). The case revolves around a translation error in the Romanian language version of the GBER and its implications for the recovery of aid granted before the error was corrected.
The judgment addresses whether a regulation correcting a language version of an EU regulation applies retroactively or only prospectively, and whether the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations preclude the recovery of State aid granted in compliance with the initial, incorrect Romanian language version of the GBER. The cases originated from disputes in Romania concerning the recovery of micro-grants provided to companies affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, where the Romanian authorities sought to recover the aid based on the corrected version of the GBER, arguing that the companies were “undertakings in difficulty” and thus ineligible for the aid.
The CJEU ruled that the correcting regulation does indeed have retroactive effect, correcting the Romanian language version of the GBER as of the date the original regulation came into force. However, the Court also stated that the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude the recovery of aid granted by Romania before the adoption of the correcting regulation, provided that the aid was granted under the aid scheme authorized by the Commission’s decision of 27 August 2020. This is because the companies were entitled to rely on the clear wording of the incorrect Romanian version of the GBER and the Commission’s approval of the aid scheme.
The most important provision of this judgment is the balancing act between the retroactive correction of a legal error and the protection of legitimate expectations. While the CJEU affirms the retroactive effect of the correcting regulation to ensure uniform application of EU law, it prioritizes the protection of those who legitimately relied on the incorrect version when receiving aid. This highlights the importance of accurate translations in EU law and provides guidance on how to handle situations where discrepancies arise between different language versions of EU legislation.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Zwrotybankowe.pl sp. z o.o. v Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 22(2) – Imperative nature of that directive – Assignment to a third party by a consumer of his or her claim against a bank – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Examination by a national court of its own motion of the unfairness of the terms in a claim assignment agreement which is not subject to an ongoing dispute before that court.Case C-80/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding consumer credit agreements and unfair contract terms. The case revolves around a Polish court’s questions about the interpretation of EU directives concerning consumer protection in the context of a claim assignment. Specifically, it addresses whether a consumer can assign their rights under a credit agreement to a third party and whether a national court must examine the fairness of the assignment agreement even when it’s not directly part of the dispute.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the directives in question: Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers and Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
2. It then describes the legal context, detailing the relevant articles of the EU directives and the corresponding Polish law.
3. The judgment outlines the dispute in the main proceedings, which involves a company, Zwrotybankowe.pl, seeking to recover a consumer’s claim against PKO Bank Polski based on an assignment agreement.
4. The referring court’s questions are presented, focusing on whether Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48 precludes national legislation allowing consumers to assign their rights to a non-consumer third party, and whether Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 require a court to examine the fairness of a claim assignment agreement.
5. The Court’s consideration of the questions is divided into two parts, each addressing one of the referring court’s questions. The Court analyzes the provisions of the directives, referencing previous case law, and provides interpretations.
6. Finally, the Court provides answers to the questions and addresses the issue of costs.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable in this case, as it is a judgment interpreting existing directives rather than a legislative act introducing new rules or amending existing ones.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are the interpretations provided by the Court regarding the two questions:
1. Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48 does not prevent national laws that allow a consumer to assign their claim to a non-consumer third party. This means that consumers can transfer their rights to companies that specialize in recovering such claims.
2. Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 do not require a national court to automatically examine the fairness of the assignment agreement itself when the dispute is between the assignee company and the original creditor (e.g., the bank). The court’s obligation to examine unfair terms primarily applies to the contract that is the subject of the dispute.
Arrêt de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 9 octobre 2025.#Commission européenne contre République hellénique.#Manquement d’État – Arrêt de la Cour constatant un manquement – Inexécution – Article 260, paragraphe 2, TFUE – Environnement – Directives 2008/98/CE et 1999/31/CE – Déchets – Décharge sur l’île de Zakynthos (Grèce) – Obligation de désaffecter cette décharge n’ayant pas obtenu l’autorisation requise – Sanctions pécuniaires – Astreinte – Somme forfaitaire.#Affaire C-368/24.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding a failure by Greece to comply with a previous judgment concerning waste management on the island of Zakynthos. The Court finds that Greece has failed to take the necessary measures to execute the Court’s 2014 judgment regarding the operation of an illegal landfill. As a result, Greece is ordered to pay a daily penalty and a lump sum.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the **request** of the European Commission, which includes a finding of failure to fulfill obligations, a lump sum payment for the period of non-compliance, a daily penalty if the failure persists, and the allocation of costs.
* It then describes the **legal framework**, citing relevant articles from Directive 1999/31/EC on waste disposal, Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, and the Commission’s 2023 Communication on financial penalties for infringement procedures.
* The judgment refers to the **previous judgment** of the Commission v. Greece of 2014, which established the initial breach.
* The judgment describes the **pre-litigation procedure**, summarizing the exchanges between the Commission and Greece regarding the measures taken to comply with the 2014 judgment.
* The judgment presents the **arguments of the parties**, where the Commission argues that Greece has not taken the necessary measures to close and rehabilitate the landfill, while Greece argues that the delay is due to objective difficulties and that it has made substantial progress.
* The judgment contains the **Court’s assessment**, which finds that Greece has failed to comply with its obligations under EU law.
* The judgment discusses the **pecuniary sanctions**, where the Commission proposes a daily penalty and a lump sum, while Greece argues that no penalty should be imposed or that the amounts should be reduced.
* The judgment contains the **Court’s assessment** regarding the pecuniary sanctions, which determines the appropriate amounts for the daily penalty and the lump sum.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the **costs**, which are to be borne by Greece.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* Greece is found to be in **breach of Article 260(1) TFEU** for failing to implement the Court’s 2014 judgment.
* Greece is ordered to pay a **daily penalty of EUR 12,500** from the date of the judgment until the 2014 judgment is implemented.
* Greece is ordered to pay a **lump sum of EUR 5,500,000**.
* Greece is ordered to pay the **costs** of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2025.Minister for Justice v SH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 4a(1) – Surrender procedure between Member States – European arrest warrant – Conditions for execution – Grounds for optional non-execution – Mandatory execution – Exceptions – Concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ – Additional sentence of police supervision – Breach of the conditions imposed in connection with that supervision – Decision converting police supervision into a custodial sentence – Sentence handed down in absentia.Case C-798/23.
This judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses the interpretation of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision, specifically concerning trials where the person did not appear in person. The case revolves around the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for a person, SH, to serve a custodial sentence in Latvia, which resulted from a conversion of police supervision into imprisonment due to breaches of the conditions of that supervision. The Irish Supreme Court sought clarification on whether such proceedings qualify as a “trial resulting in the decision” under EU law.
The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, particularly regarding the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ when a person is subject to an additional sentence of police supervision and subsequently faces a custodial sentence due to a breach of the conditions of that supervision. The Court emphasizes that the execution of a European arrest warrant is the rule, and refusal is an exception to be interpreted strictly. It also reiterates that Article 4a(1) aims to protect the right of the accused to appear in person at trial, while improving mutual recognition of judicial decisions between Member States.
The Court ruled that the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ does indeed cover proceedings where a national court orders the conversion of an unserved term of police supervision into a custodial sentence due to a breach of conditions. This is because the decision to impose a custodial sentence in lieu of police supervision is considered a new decision imposing a custodial sentence, different in nature from the initial one. The Court also noted that the person concerned must be able to fully exercise his or her rights of defence in order to assert his or her point of view in an effective manner and thereby to influence the final decision which could lead to the loss of his or her personal freedom.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services
This notice announces the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services. The agreement aims to update and potentially expand the existing framework for air services between the EU and Bangladesh. It officially came into effect on June 30, 2025, following the completion of the necessary notifications by both parties.
The notice itself is brief and serves solely to announce the effective date of the agreement. The full agreement, referenced as OJ L, 2024/1699, contains the substantive provisions. To understand the structure and main provisions, one must refer to the original agreement (OJ L, 2024/1699). The agreement likely covers aspects such as traffic rights, capacity, code-sharing, and other operational and commercial aspects of air services between the EU and Bangladesh.
The most important aspect of this notice is the date of entry into force: June 30, 2025. This date is crucial for airlines, regulatory bodies, and other stakeholders as it marks the point from which the provisions of the Agreement are legally binding and applicable. To fully understand the implications, one must consult the full text of the Agreement (OJ L, 2024/1699).
