Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2048: This regulation grants Union authorization for the biocidal product family ‘3025,’ used as disinfectants and algaecides, but not directly on humans or animals. Key ingredients are C(M)IT/MIT (3:1) and glutaraldehyde. The authorization is effective from November 5, 2025, to September 30, 2030. Users must adhere to specific instructions, PPE requirements, and disposal guidelines detailed in the Annex.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2067: This amends Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 concerning fees payable to ECHA under REACH. It adjusts standard fees for inflation, introduces an ex-ante SME verification process, and allows ECHA to charge for SME status verification. Companies claiming SME status must apply for recognition two months before submitting information, with decisions valid for three years. Inflation adjustments don’t affect SME fees.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2123: This regulation amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, updating the list of individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures related to ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. It updates the identifying data for two individuals, including information on their reported deaths or imprisonments.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2068: This regulation renews the approval of milbemectin for use in plant protection products and amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 accordingly. It sets conditions for use to protect the environment and human health, including measures for bees, pollinators, and aquatic organisms, and requires the submission of confirmatory information on substance safety by November 5, 2027.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2064: This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 321/2013 on technical specifications for interoperability for freight wagons. It ensures consistency with regulations for the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (RID), enhances safety in semi-trailer transport, and integrates new technologies like digital automatic coupling. New requirements for devices to secure semi-trailers and integration of RID requirements are key.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2082: This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, extending the deadline for Eurojust to establish its new case management system until December 1, 2027. This extension allows Eurojust to continue using its existing system until the new one is fully operational.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2058: This regulation updates Annexes II and III of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives, particularly for foods intended for specific nutritional uses. It updates references to reflect the repeal of old directives by Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 and adjusts conditions for using food additives, especially in foods for infants and young children and for weight control.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2060: This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, permitting the use of sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202) in non-heat-treated plant-based mousses at a maximum level of 500 mg/kg, ensuring microbiological safety.
Judgment in Case T-182/22, *Pumpyanskaya v Council*: The General Court annulled the Council’s decision to maintain Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes related to the situation in Ukraine. The court found that the Council incorrectly assessed that she benefited from her husband, a “leading businessperson operating in Russia.”
Judgment in Case T-667/22, *MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG v SRB*: The General Court addressed a request for access to documents related to the SRB’s resolution scheme for Sberbank banka d.d. The court examined whether the SRB was justified in refusing access based on exceptions related to financial policy, commercial interests, and privacy, emphasizing that these exceptions must be strictly applied.
Judgment in Case T-698/22, *Red Bull GmbH and Others v Commission*: The General Court dismissed Red Bull’s challenge to the Commission’s decision to conduct inspections based on suspicions of anti-competitive practices in the energy drinks sector. The Court confirmed that the Commission only needs “sufficiently serious indications” to justify an inspection.
Judgment in Case T-432/23, *Bulkhead Interactive Limited v EUIPO*: The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision finding a likelihood of confusion between Bulkhead Ltd’s EU trade mark application for “WARDOGS” and Ubisoft Entertainment’s earlier EU word mark “WATCH DOGS.”
Judgment in Case T-751/23, *Frutaria Innovation SL v EUIPO and Schneider*: The General Court rejected Frutaria Innovation SL’s application to annul EUIPO’s decision declaring their “Frutaria” figurative mark invalid due to its descriptive character and lack of acquired distinctiveness for “dried fruits” and “fresh fruits.”
Judgment in Case T-571/22, *MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG v Single Resolution Board*: The General Court dismissed MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG’s action against the Single Resolution Board (SRB) regarding access to documents related to the resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. The court upheld the SRB’s partial refusal of access, citing exceptions related to financial stability, commercial interests, and regulatory investigations.
Judgment in Case T-223/23, *VZ v Parliament*: The General Court dismissed an action brought by VZ, a former Member of the European Parliament, against the Parliament, upholding the Parliament’s decisions finding her guilty of harassment against her parliamentary assistants and imposing sanctions.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2048 of 10 October 2025 granting a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family 3025 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2048 grants a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family ‘3025’ to Schuelke & Mayr GmbH. The product family is authorized for use as disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals, and in food and feed areas. The active substances in ‘3025’ are C(M)IT/MIT (3:1) and glutaraldehyde. The authorisation is valid from 5 November 2025 until 30 September 2030.
The Regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family ‘3025’ and specifies the authorisation number and validity period. Article 2 states the date of entry into force of the regulation. The annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics for the product family ‘3025’, including administrative information, product family composition, hazard and precautionary statements and authorized uses.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are those that describe the authorized uses of the product, the specific instructions for use, and the risk mitigation measures that must be followed. These are detailed in Part II of the Annex, specifically in the Meta SPC(s) sections, which outline the conditions for different applications of the biocidal product family. It is crucial for users to adhere to the specified personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, ventilation guidelines, and disposal instructions to ensure safe and effective use of the product.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2067 of 15 October 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2067 amends Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 regarding fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) under the REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. The key changes include adjusting standard fees and charges to reflect inflation, introducing an ex-ante SME verification process, and allowing the Agency to introduce an administrative charge for SME status verification. The regulation aims to enhance the financial sustainability of the ECHA and improve the efficiency of the SME verification process.
The regulation consists of three articles and eight annexes. Article 1 details the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, including inserting a new paragraph in Article 10 regarding reduced appeal fees for SMEs and modifying Article 13 concerning the recognition of SME status. It introduces the concept of an administrative charge for SME verification and specifies the validity period for SME status decisions. Article 2 clarifies that the regulation does not apply to valid submissions pending on the date of entry into force. Article 3 specifies the entry into force date and a deferred application date for certain provisions related to SME verification. Annexes I to VIII replace the corresponding annexes in Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, updating the fee schedules for various processes under REACH.
The most important provisions for users are those related to the SME verification process and the adjusted fee schedules. Companies claiming SME status must now apply for recognition of this status at least two months before submitting information to the Agency. The Agency’s decision on SME status will be valid for three years, covering all submissions made during that period. The regulation also introduces an administrative charge for SME status verification, which is waived if the SME status is confirmed. Standard fees and charges have been adjusted to reflect inflation, but these adjustments do not apply to fees and charges payable by SMEs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2123 of 14 October 2025 amending for the 350th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2123 amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which imposes restrictive measures against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. The amendment updates Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which lists the persons, groups, and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources. The changes are based on decisions made by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council.
The structure of the regulation is simple: it consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that it is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex details the specific amendments to the identifying data of listed individuals.
The main provisions of the act are the changes in the Annex. The identifying data for two entries under the heading ‘Natural persons’ in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended. Specifically, the entry for “Abd El Kader Mahmoud Mohamed El Sayed” is updated to include information that he was reportedly killed in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2012. The entry for “Aris Sumarsono” is updated to include the information that he was sentenced to 15 years in prison in Indonesia in January 2022. These updates ensure that the identifying information is current and accurate, which is crucial for the effective implementation of the sanctions regime.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2068 of 15 October 2025 renewing the approval of the active substance milbemectin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2068 renews the approval of the active substance milbemectin, used in plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. It also amends Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 to reflect this renewal. The regulation confirms that milbemectin meets the necessary approval criteria, while also setting specific conditions for its use to mitigate potential risks to the environment and human health.
The regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 states the renewal of milbemectin’s approval, subject to the conditions in Annex I. Article 2 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 according to Annex II, which involves deleting the old entry for milbemectin from Part A and adding a new entry to Part B. Article 3 defines the entry into force and application date of the regulation. Annex I details the specific provisions for the renewed approval, including considerations for the technical material’s specification, operator and worker protection, and the protection of bees, pollinators, and aquatic organisms. It also requires the applicant to submit confirmatory information on the substance’s aneugenic potential, metabolism, phototoxicity, and aquatic risk assessment by November 5, 2027. Annex II provides the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, replacing the old entry for milbemectin with an updated one that includes the new expiration date and specific provisions.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are those outlined in Annex I, which detail the specific conditions and limitations of the renewed approval of milbemectin. These include the need for risk mitigation measures to protect bees, pollinators, and aquatic organisms, as well as the requirement for the applicant to submit confirmatory information on various aspects of the substance’s safety profile by a specified date. Member States must also pay particular attention to the specification of the technical material and the protection of operators and workers during the overall assessment of plant protection products containing milbemectin.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2064 of 14 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 321/2013 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock – freight wagons subsystem of the rail system in the European Union (WAG TSI)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2064 amends Regulation (EU) No 321/2013, which concerns the technical specifications for interoperability (TSI) relating to the ‘rolling stock – freight wagons’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union. The main goals of this amendment are to ensure consistency with regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), enhance safety in semi-trailer transport on pocket wagons, and integrate new technologies like digital automatic coupling. The regulation aims to harmonize vehicle authorization processes, improve assessment quality, and streamline administrative procedures.
The structure of the act involves amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 321/2013. Key changes include adding definitions related to RID, inserting new rows in tables to address devices for securing semi-trailers, and including specific requirements for wagons in the scope of Chapter 7.1 of RID. The amendments also cover fire safety, marking requirements, and transitional rules for units equipped with devices to secure semi-trailers. Compared to the previous version, the regulation introduces new technical requirements for semi-trailer securing devices, integrates RID requirements into the TSI, and updates specifications for spark arresters and material testing.
Several provisions are particularly important. The new requirements for devices to secure semi-trailers, including strength, locking force, and indication, aim to prevent incidents related to improperly secured semi-trailers. The integration of RID requirements ensures that wagons used for transporting dangerous goods meet specific safety standards. The transitional rules for existing units equipped with semi-trailer securing devices mandate compliance with updated requirements within specified timeframes, requiring keepers and manufacturers to assess and document conformity.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2082 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 as regards the extension of the timeframe for the establishment of the Eurojust case management system
Regulation (EU) 2025/2082 amends Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, which established the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). The key purpose of this amendment is to extend the deadline for Eurojust to establish its new case management system. This extension allows Eurojust to continue using its existing system of temporary work files and an index until the new system is fully operational and data migration is complete. The regulation aims to ensure a smooth transition to the new system while maintaining secure data processing.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 replaces paragraph 9 of Article 80 in Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, extending the period during which Eurojust can use its current case management system until December 1, 2027, provided the new system is not in place and data migration is not completed before that date. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States. The main change is the extension of the deadline for the establishment of the new case management system, providing Eurojust with additional time to ensure its operationality and interoperability.
The most important provision of this regulation is the extension of the deadline for Eurojust to implement its new case management system until December 1, 2027. This extension is crucial because it allows Eurojust to thoroughly test the new system, ensure its interoperability, and accurately migrate data from the old system. This ensures that Eurojust can continue its operations without disruption and maintain the security and integrity of its data processing activities during the transition period.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2058 of 14 October 2025 amending Annexes II and III and correcting Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards foods intended for particular nutritional uses
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2058 updates and corrects Annexes II and III of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, which concerns food additives, specifically regarding foods intended for particular nutritional uses. The amendments ensure that the regulations align with current legislative frameworks, particularly Regulation (EU) No 609/2013, which has superseded previous directives.
The Regulation modifies Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 by updating references to reflect the repeal of Directive 2009/39/EC and related directives by Regulation (EU) No 609/2013. It replaces references to old directives with the new regulation in food categories and subcategories, specifically in Part E of Annex II. It moves certain food categories, such as foods for weight control and gluten-free foods, to new subcategories under category 18 (“Processed foods not covered by categories 1 to 17”). It also corrects the E code for the food additive advantame in specific food categories.
Annex III is amended to update the definition of “nutrients” and to adjust the conditions for using food additives in nutrients, particularly those intended for use in foods for infants and young children.
Finally, Annex II is corrected to rectify the E code for advantame in food categories 13.2 and 13.3.
The most important provisions of this act relate to the updated food categories and the permitted food additives within those categories, especially for foods intended for infants and young children, and for total diet replacement for weight control. Food manufacturers need to ensure their products comply with the revised categories and the allowed additives and their conditions of use as specified in the amended annexes.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2060 of 14 October 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202) in non-heat-treated plant-based mousses
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2060 amends Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, specifically concerning the use of sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202) in non-heat-treated plant-based mousses. The regulation permits the use of these additives as preservatives in the specified product category to ensure microbiological safety without compromising the product’s organoleptic properties.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex adds a specific provision for the use of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate (E 200-202) in non-heat-treated plant-based mousses within food category 16 ‘Desserts excluding products covered in categories 1, 3 and 4’, allowing a maximum level of 500 mg/kg.
The most important provision of this regulation is the authorization to use sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202) at a maximum level of 500 mg/kg in non-heat-treated plant-based mousses. This allows manufacturers to ensure the safety and shelf-life of these products, which cannot undergo heat treatment without altering their desired characteristics.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2025.Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘benefiting from leading businesspersons operating in Russia’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Directive 2014/145 – Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Error of assessment.Case T-235/25.
This is a judgment by the General Court regarding restrictive measures against Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya, a Russian national, related to the situation in Ukraine. The court annuls the Council’s decision and implementing regulation that maintained her name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes. The core issue revolves around whether the Council correctly assessed that Ms. Pumpyanskaya benefited from a “leading businessperson operating in Russia,” namely her husband.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the purpose of the action and the specific acts being challenged. It then provides background information on the dispute, including the initial restrictive measures adopted in 2014 and subsequent amendments. The judgment details the legal framework, specifically referencing Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145 and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which define the criteria for imposing restrictive measures. It outlines the procedural history, including previous actions brought by Ms. Pumpyanskaya. The court then presents the forms of order sought by the parties and proceeds to analyze the pleas in law raised by the applicant, focusing on the alleged error of assessment. Finally, the court addresses the effects of the annulment and the issue of costs.
The most important provision in this judgment is the court’s finding that the Council made an error of assessment in concluding that Ms. Pumpyanskaya benefited from a “leading businessperson operating in Russia.” This finding is based on a separate judgment that found the Council had incorrectly classified her husband as such a businessperson. Because the justification for including Ms. Pumpyanskaya on the list was her purported benefit from her husband, the court annulled the decision and implementing regulation as they pertained to her.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2025.MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Vermögensverwaltungs AG v Single Resolution Board.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning the adoption by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of a resolution scheme for Sberbank banka d.d. – Decisions of the SRB Appeal Panel concerning confirmatory decisions of the SRB refusing access – Partial refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State – Fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – First indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001.Case T-291/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG against the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The case concerns the applicant’s request for access to documents related to the SRB’s adoption of a resolution scheme for Sberbank banka d.d. The applicant sought annulment of the SRB’s decisions refusing full access to these documents. The court’s judgment addresses the legality of the SRB’s decisions to partially or fully deny access based on exceptions related to financial policy, commercial interests, and privacy.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the applicant’s initial request for documents and the SRB’s subsequent decisions and appeals. The court then addresses the claims for annulment, dividing them into several sections: claims against the initial confirmatory decision and the first decision of the Appeal Panel, claims against the implied decision, and claims against the second confirmatory decision and the second decision of the Appeal Panel. For the latter, the court examines pleas of illegality regarding the Rules of Procedure of the Appeal Panel and various other pleas challenging the SRB’s decisions, including failures to state reasons, misapplication of exceptions, and breaches of procedural rights. Finally, the court rules on the allocation of costs.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the exceptions to the right of access to documents. The court examines in detail whether the SRB was justified in refusing access to certain documents based on the need to protect the financial, monetary, or economic policy of the EU or a Member State, the commercial interests of third parties, and the privacy and integrity of individuals. The court emphasizes that these exceptions must be interpreted and applied strictly, and that the SRB must provide specific and effective reasons for invoking them. The judgment also clarifies the relationship between Regulation No 1049/2001 (on public access to documents) and other legal frameworks, such as Regulation No 806/2014 (establishing the Single Resolution Mechanism) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 15 octobre 2025.#Red Bull GmbH e.a. contre Commission européenne.#Concurrence – Ententes – Abus de position dominante – Secteur des boissons énergisantes – Procédure administrative – Décision ordonnant une inspection – Article 20, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 – Obligation de motivation – Indices suffisamment sérieux – Soupçon d’infraction – Proportionnalité.#Affaire T-306/23.
This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a challenge by Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU, and Red Bull Nederland BV against a decision by the European Commission. The Commission’s decision had ordered inspections of Red Bull’s premises based on suspicions of anti-competitive practices in the energy drinks sector.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including the Commission’s suspicions of Red Bull engaging in practices to restrict competition in the energy drinks market, specifically concerning drinks sold in containers larger than 250ml. These practices included:
* Offering financial incentives to retailers to remove competing energy drinks (particularly those over 250ml) from shelves.
* Engaging in a disparagement campaign against energy drinks sold in larger containers.
* Colluding with other members of Energy Drinks Europe (EDE) to limit sales of energy drinks in larger containers.
* **The Commission’s Decision:** The judgment describes the Commission’s decision to order inspections of Red Bull’s premises in Austria, France, and the Netherlands.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments made by Red Bull (the applicants) and the Commission (the defendant). Red Bull sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision, arguing that it was unfounded, lacked sufficient evidence, was poorly reasoned, violated the principle of proportionality, and infringed upon their procedural rights.
* **The Court’s Reasoning:** The General Court systematically addresses each of Red Bull’s arguments, ultimately rejecting them all. The Court finds that the Commission’s decision was adequately motivated, based on sufficient evidence, and did not violate the principle of proportionality or Red Bull’s procedural rights.
* **Disposition:** The Court dismisses Red Bull’s action and orders them to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
This judgment primarily concerns the legality of the Commission’s decision to conduct inspections. It does not introduce new regulations or change existing laws. Instead, it interprets and applies existing EU competition law principles to the specific facts of the case.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment for practical use are:
* **Standard of Proof for Inspections:** The Court confirms that the Commission only needs “sufficiently serious indications” of a potential infringement to justify an inspection. It does not need concrete proof at this stage.
* **Scope of Inspections:** The Court clarifies that the Commission has broad discretion in determining the scope of inspections, as long as the decision ordering the inspection is adequately motivated and specifies the object and purpose of the inspection.
* **Proportionality:** The Court emphasizes that inspections must be proportionate, but acknowledges that the Commission is best placed to determine whether an inspection is necessary to gather information that would not be provided voluntarily.
* **Procedural Rights:** The Court acknowledges the importance of procedural rights, but clarifies that alleged irregularities during the inspection process do not necessarily invalidate the decision ordering the inspection.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reinforces that the burden of proof for establishing an infringement of competition law lies with the Commission, but that this burden is not applicable at the stage of ordering an inspection.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2025.Bulkhead Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark WARDOGS – Earlier EU word mark WATCH DOGS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-109/25.
This judgment concerns a dispute between Bulkhead Ltd and Ubisoft Entertainment over the EU trade mark application for “WARDOGS” by Bulkhead Ltd. Ubisoft Entertainment opposed the registration based on its earlier EU word mark “WATCH DOGS,” arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion. The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had ruled in favor of Ubisoft Entertainment, finding a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the details of the trade mark application and the opposition filed by Ubisoft Entertainment. It then presents the forms of order sought by Bulkhead Ltd, which include the annulment of the contested decision and the registration of the “WARDOGS” mark. The Court then addresses the jurisdiction issue, clarifying that it cannot order EUIPO to register the mark. The core of the judgment focuses on the single plea of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion. The Court assesses the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, ultimately agreeing with the Board of Appeal’s finding of at least an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity and at least a low degree of conceptual similarity. Finally, the Court concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion and dismisses the action, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
The most important provisions of this judgment revolve around the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between two trade marks. The Court emphasizes the need for a global assessment, considering all relevant factors, including the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods or services, and the perception of the relevant public. The judgment also clarifies that conceptual differences between signs can counteract visual and phonetic similarities only if at least one of the signs has a clear and specific meaning that the public can immediately grasp. This case serves as an example of how the courts interpret and apply Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 in trade mark disputes.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2025.Frutaria Innovation SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Frutaria – Absolute ground for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – No distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94.Case T-381/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark invalidity case. The court rejected an application by Frutaria Innovation SL to annul a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that declared their “Frutaria” figurative mark invalid for “dried fruits” and “fresh fruits” due to its descriptive character and lack of acquired distinctiveness through use. The court agreed with EUIPO that the mark was descriptive for the relevant goods and that Frutaria Innovation SL had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the mark had acquired distinctive character through use in the relevant territory (Portugal).
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** Describes the initial trade mark application, the goods and services covered, the invalidity proceedings initiated by Markus Schneider, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the requests made by Frutaria Innovation SL (applicant), EUIPO (defendant), and Markus Schneider (intervener).
3. **Law:** Specifies the applicable legal framework, which is Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 due to the filing date of the trade mark application. It also clarifies that references to Regulation 2017/1001 in the contested decision should be understood as references to Regulation No 40/94.
4. **The first plea in law:** Addresses the applicant’s claim that the mark is not descriptive and thus the decision infringes Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c).
5. **The second plea in law:** Addresses the applicant’s claim that the mark is not devoid of any distinctive character and thus the decision infringes Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b).
6. **The third plea in law:** Addresses the applicant’s claim that the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the contested mark had not acquired distinctive character through use and thus the decision infringes Article 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 7(3).
7. **Costs:** Determines who is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act are related to the assessment of the descriptive character of the trade mark and whether it has acquired distinctiveness through use. The court emphasizes that for a mark to be considered descriptive, there must be a direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods/services, allowing the relevant public to immediately perceive a description without further thought. The court also clarifies that when a composite mark contains a descriptive element, the figurative elements must be sufficiently striking to divert the public’s attention from the descriptive meaning. Regarding acquired distinctiveness, the court highlights the need for direct evidence, such as surveys or market studies, to demonstrate that a significant proportion of the relevant public identifies the goods/services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark.
The most important provisions for its use are those concerning the criteria for assessing the descriptive character of a mark and the evidence required to prove that a mark has acquired distinctive character through use. The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the relevant public’s perception and providing concrete evidence to support claims of acquired distinctiveness.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2025.MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Vermögensverwaltungs AG v Single Resolution Board.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning the adoption by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of a resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. – Decisions of the SRB Appeal Panel concerning confirmatory decisions of the SRB refusing access – Partial refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State – Fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – First indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.Case T-290/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a case concerning access to documents held by the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The case revolves around a request by MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG, formerly Sber Vermögensverwaltungs AG, for access to documents related to the resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. (Sberbank Croatia). The SRB initially granted partial access but later refused full access, citing exceptions related to the protection of financial, monetary, or economic policy, commercial interests, and the purpose of inspections, investigations, and audits.
The judgment deals with the applicant’s challenge to the SRB’s decisions and the decisions of the SRB Appeal Panel regarding the refusal of full access. The court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the SRB’s partial refusal of access.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Background:** The judgment outlines the factual background, including the applicant’s ownership of shares in Sberbank Croatia, the initial request for access to documents, and the subsequent decisions by the SRB and its Appeal Panel.
* **Claims:** The applicant sought the annulment of several decisions by the SRB and the Appeal Panel.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The court addresses several pleas raised by the applicant, including:
* Procedural issues related to the timing and handling of the access request.
* Allegations of illegality concerning the Rules of Procedure of the Appeal Panel.
* Substantive arguments regarding the misapplication of exceptions to the right of access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
* **Disposition:** The court declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on claims regarding initial decisions, dismisses the remainder of the action, and orders the applicant to pay the costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment primarily interprets and applies Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents, as well as Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions. It clarifies the scope and application of exceptions to the right of access, particularly concerning financial stability, commercial interests, and ongoing investigations.
**Most Important Provisions:**
* **Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001:** This article lists exceptions to the general rule of public access to documents. The court’s interpretation of these exceptions, particularly those related to financial, monetary, or economic policy (Art. 4(1)(a)), commercial interests (Art. 4(2)), and the purpose of inspections, investigations, and audits (Art. 4(2)), is central to the judgment.
* **Article 85 of Regulation No 806/2014:** This article establishes the Appeal Panel of the SRB and sets out the procedures for appeals against decisions of the SRB. The court’s analysis of the Appeal Panel’s Rules of Procedure and its interpretation of Article 85 are important for understanding the procedural aspects of the case.
This judgment provides valuable insights into how EU courts balance the principle of transparency with the need to protect sensitive information related to financial stability, commercial interests, and regulatory investigations.
Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 15 octobre 2025.#VZ contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Membres du Parlement – Harcèlement moral – Décisions de la présidente du Parlement concluant à l’existence d’un harcèlement moral à l’égard de plusieurs assistants parlementaires accrédités et prononçant à l’encontre d’un député la perte du droit à l’indemnité de séjour et la suspension de la participation aux activités du Parlement pendant trente jours – Délais de procédure – Droits de la défense – Présomption d’innocence.#Affaire T-223/23.
The judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2025, in Case T-223/23, concerns an action brought by VZ, a former Member of the European Parliament, against the Parliament. VZ sought the annulment of the Parliament’s decisions finding her guilty of harassment against three of her parliamentary assistants and imposing sanctions, including the loss of the right to a daily subsistence allowance and suspension from parliamentary activities for 30 days. The Court dismissed the action, upholding the Parliament’s decisions.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Introduction:** VZ’s request for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions.
2. **Background to the Dispute:** Complaints of harassment filed by three parliamentary assistants against VZ, the investigation conducted by the advisory committee, and the decisions made by the President of the Parliament.
3. **Conclusions of the Parties:** VZ’s requests to the Court and the Parliament’s response.
4. **Law:**
* **Subject Matter of the Action:** Clarification of the scope of the action, specifying that it concerns the decision finding harassment and the decision on sanctions.
* **Substance:** Examination of the three pleas raised by VZ:
* Violation of procedural deadlines.
* Violation of the rights of the defense and the right to effective judicial protection.
* Violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence.
5. **Requests for Measures of Inquiry:** Rejection of VZ’s requests for additional investigations.
6. **Costs:** VZ is ordered to pay the costs.
The main provisions of the act are:
* **Procedural Deadlines:** The Court found that the Parliament did not violate the procedural deadlines in handling the harassment complaints. The initial delay in presenting the preliminary study was justified because the complaints were incomplete, and the delay in communicating the final decision was not unduly long and did not affect the outcome.
* **Rights of the Defense:** The Court held that while the general principle of respect for the rights of the defense applies, it does not require the Parliament to provide the accused with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court also found that VZ had sufficient access to the relevant documents, including summaries of witness statements, and that the confidentiality measures taken by the Parliament were justified.
* **Presumption of Innocence:** The Court ruled that VZ’s claim of a violation of the presumption of innocence was inadmissible because she did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the Parliament had conducted a biased investigation.
The most important provisions for its use are those related to the rights of the defense in harassment cases within the European Parliament. The judgment clarifies that while the rights of the defense must be respected, they do not include the right to cross-examine witnesses. It also confirms that the Parliament can take measures to protect the confidentiality of witness statements, as long as the accused is provided with sufficient information to understand the allegations against them and to present their defense.
