Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2123
This regulation updates the EU’s sanctions list against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. It amends Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, based on decisions by the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Committee. Specifically, it updates the entries for two individuals: Abd El Kader Mahmoud Mohamed El Sayed, noting his reported death in 2012, and Aris Sumarsono, indicating his 15-year prison sentence in Indonesia in 2022. The changes ensure the sanctions are targeted accurately and reflect current information.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2067
This regulation modifies the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) under the REACH Regulation. It adjusts standard fees for inflation, introduces a process for ex-ante SME verification, and permits an administrative charge for this verification. Companies claiming SME status must apply at least two months before submitting their application for reduced fees. A decision on SME status is valid for three years. Inflation adjustment does not apply to fees paid by SMEs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2068
This regulation renews the approval of milbemectin as an active substance in plant protection products within the EU. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 to reflect this renewal, subject to specific conditions outlined in Annex I. Member States must consider the renewal report on milbemectin, particularly regarding the protection of operators, bees, pollinators, and aquatic organisms. The applicant is required to submit confirmatory information by November 5, 2027, addressing concerns about the substance’s potential impacts and risks.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2048
This regulation grants Union authorization to Schuelke & Mayr GmbH for the biocidal product family ‘3025’ for use as disinfectants and algaecides, excluding direct application to humans or animals, and including use in food and feed areas. The authorization is valid from November 5, 2025, until September 30, 2030. The annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics, including administrative information, product family composition and formulation, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, general directions for use, and other information. Adherence to these instructions is important for ensuring the safe and effective use of the product and to minimize potential risks to human health and the environment.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2083
This act amends the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Regulation (EU) 2023/956. It introduces a “de minimis” exemption for importers of small quantities of goods, simplifies the calculation of embedded emissions for certain goods, clarifies procedures for authorized CBAM declarants, extends the deadline for submitting the CBAM declaration to September 30th of each year, specifies the registration process for operators and installations in third countries and introduces fees payable by authorised CBAM declarants to cover the costs of the common central platform. Importers of small quantities (below 50 tonnes annually for certain sectors) will be exempt from CBAM obligations.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2073
Regulation (EU) 2025/2073 updates the lists of insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners recognized by EU Member States under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings. Annexes A and B, which define the scope of Regulation (EU) 2015/848, are updated. These annexes are crucial for determining which insolvency proceedings and practitioners are recognized across the EU, facilitating cooperation and recognition of judgments in cross-border insolvency cases.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1958 of the European Central Bank
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2015/534, focusing on the reporting of supervisory financial information by supervised entities. The key aim is to enhance the oversight of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) by requiring less significant credit institutions to provide additional data points concerning performing and non-performing exposures, as well as forborne exposures. The updated tables include granular information on the classification of exposures (performing, non-performing, forborne), their respective carrying amounts, and associated accumulated impairments or provisions.
CJEU Judgment regarding air passenger rights
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004. The CJEU’s ruling is that a lightning strike on an aircraft, which necessitates mandatory safety inspections, does indeed constitute an “extraordinary circumstance”. However, the air carrier must still demonstrate that it took all reasonable measures to mitigate the consequences of the delay.
CJEU Judgment concerning the loss of a pet during air travel
This judgment clarifies that pets are considered “baggage” under Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention. This means that the loss of a pet during air travel falls under the liability rules for baggage, not the rules for passengers. The judgment confirms that the limitation of liability established in the Montreal Convention also applies to pets as baggage.
CJEU Judgment regarding anti-dumping duties on bicycle parts imported from China
This judgment addresses the conditions under which importers can be exempt from anti-dumping duties on bicycle parts imported from China, specifically focusing on the exemption for small-scale operators importing small quantities of bicycle parts. The most important takeaways from this judgment are: importers can potentially benefit from multiple exemptions under Article 14 of Regulation No 88/97 within a single authorization, the “less than 300 units” rule is a strict limit that applies to the total number of parts imported per month, regardless of how many customers the importer has and if an importer exceeds the 300-unit limit for any type of bicycle part in a month, they lose the exemption from anti-dumping duties for those parts entirely.
CJEU Judgment regarding the right to an effective remedy in the context of EU funds
The CJEU emphasizes that national courts must be able to grant interim relief to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law. If national law prevents a court from granting such relief, the court is obliged to set aside that rule. The judgment also points out the importance of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law, which may require national courts to change established case-law if it is incompatible with EU law objectives.
CJEU Judgment regarding the termination of the contract of a temporary agent in case of a breach of the relationship of trust
The most important provisions for its use are that the Court of Justice confirms the possibility of terminating the contract of a temporary agent in case of a breach of the relationship of trust, and also confirms the high level of evidence that the applicant must provide to prove moral harassment.
CJEU Judgment regarding restrictive measures against Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko
This judgment confirms the EU’s broad powers to implement restrictive measures in response to the situation in Ukraine, including imposing obligations on individuals subject to sanctions to report their assets. This has direct implications for individuals and entities listed in Annex I of Regulation No 269/2014, as they must comply with the reporting obligation to avoid being considered as circumventing the sanctions.
CJEU Judgment regarding Spanish regional legislation on games of chance
The judgment reaffirms that Member States have a wide discretion in regulating gambling activities to protect public health and social order. However, these regulations must be non-discriminatory, justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and proportionate.
CJEU Judgment regarding taxation of electricity producers from renewable sources in Romania
The CJEU’s judgment provides Member States with some flexibility in designing their energy taxation policies, even if those policies differentiate between renewable and non-renewable energy sources, as long as they are consistent with the overall objectives of EU law.
CJEU Judgment regarding State aid case involving the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)
The Court finds that the Commission should have examined whether the measure at issue conferred an indirect advantage on bodies that serve the common interest and that the failure to examine that question in the decision at issue did not make it possible to rule out the existence of serious difficulties.
CJEU Judgment regarding the interpretation of the EU Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement
The Court rules that a modification to the remuneration model does not automatically alter the overall nature of the framework agreement unless it leads to a fundamental change in the balance of the agreement. The Court emphasizes that the concept of “overall nature” is distinct from that of a “substantial modification.” The judgment provides guidance on how to interpret the conditions under which modifications to public contracts and framework agreements require a new procurement procedure, balancing the need for flexibility with the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
CJEU Judgment regarding cabotage operations for coach and bus services in Denmark
The most important provision of the judgment is the Court’s confirmation that Member States have a margin of discretion to implement national measures clarifying the scope of “cabotage operations” under Regulation No 1073/2009, even though the regulation does not explicitly authorize such measures. The Court also emphasized that any such measures must adhere to the principle of proportionality, meaning they must be appropriate for achieving the regulation’s objectives and not exceed what is necessary to achieve them. This clarifies the extent to which Member States can regulate cabotage operations within their territories.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
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 amending regulation 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. These amendments reflect decisions made by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasons for the amendment, followed by two articles. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as per the Annex to the new 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 provides the specific amendments to the identifying data of listed individuals.
The main provisions of the act are the changes to the identifying information of two individuals listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002. 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 are crucial for ensuring that the restrictive measures are accurately targeted and reflect the most current information available.
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 involve adjusting standard fees and charges to reflect inflation, introducing an ex-ante SME verification process, and allowing for an administrative charge for SME status verification. These amendments aim to enhance the financial sustainability of the ECHA and improve the efficiency of the SME verification process.
The regulation modifies Articles 10 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 and replaces Annexes I to VIII with updated fee structures. Article 10 is amended to include provisions for reduced appeal fees for entities with recognized SME status. Article 13 is amended to introduce an application process for recognition of SME status before submission of relevant documentation. The updated annexes specify the revised standard and reduced fees for various registration, notification, and authorization processes under REACH.
The most important provisions of this act are related to the SME status verification. Companies claiming reduced fees must now apply for SME status recognition at least two months before submitting their application. The ECHA may introduce an administrative charge for SME verification, which is waived if the SME status is confirmed. A decision on SME status is valid for three years for all submissions under relevant Union law. The inflation adjustment will not apply to fees and charges payable by SMEs to the Agency.
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 concerns the renewal of the approval of the active substance milbemectin, used in plant protection products, within the European Union. It confirms that milbemectin meets the necessary approval criteria under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, thereby allowing its continued use in plant protection products. The regulation also amends Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 to reflect this renewal.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It 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. Article 3 covers the entry into force and application date of the regulation. Annex I details the specific conditions for the renewed approval of milbemectin, including requirements for risk mitigation and confirmatory information. Annex II amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 by deleting the old entry for milbemectin from Part A and adding a new entry to Part B, reflecting the renewed approval with the updated conditions.
The most important provisions for stakeholders are those outlined in Annex I. These include the need for Member States to consider the conclusions of the renewal report on milbemectin, particularly regarding the specification of the technical material, protection of operators, bees, pollinators, and aquatic organisms. Crucially, the regulation mandates the applicant to submit confirmatory information by 5 November 2027, addressing concerns about the aneugenic potential and phototoxicity of milbemectin, comparative metabolism, and the risk to aquatic sediment organisms. These conditions ensure that the use of milbemectin remains safe and environmentally sound, based on the latest scientific knowledge.
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 authorisation is valid from November 5, 2025, until September 30, 2030. The regulation specifies the conditions of use, risk mitigation measures, and other relevant information for the safe and effective use of the product family.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation to Schuelke & Mayr GmbH for the biocidal product family ‘3025’ and specifies the validity period of the authorisation. Article 2 states that the regulation enters into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics for the product family ‘3025’, including administrative information, product family composition and formulation, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, general directions for use, and other information.
The most important provisions of this act are those related to the authorized uses of the biocidal product family ‘3025’ and the specific conditions for each use. These provisions detail the target organisms, fields of use, application methods, rates and frequency, user categories, pack sizes, and specific instructions for use, including risk mitigation measures and safe disposal instructions. It is crucial for users to adhere to these instructions to ensure the safe and effective use of the product and to minimize potential risks to human health and the environment.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism (Text with EEA relevance)
Here’s a breakdown of Regulation (EU) 2025/2083, amending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Regulation (EU) 2023/956:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation fine-tunes the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to make it more efficient and easier to implement. It introduces a “de minimis” exemption for importers of small quantities of goods, simplifies the calculation of embedded emissions for certain goods, and clarifies procedures for authorized CBAM declarants. The goal is to reduce administrative burdens while maintaining the environmental objectives of the CBAM.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation amends several articles and annexes of the original CBAM Regulation (EU) 2023/956. Key changes include:
* **Article 2:** Introduces an exemption for electricity and hydrogen generated on the continental shelf or in the exclusive economic zone of a Member State or a third country.
* **Article 2a:** Introduces a “de minimis” exemption based on a single mass-based threshold (50 tonnes initially) for importers of goods in the iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizers, and cement sectors. If an importer’s total imports of these goods stay below this threshold in a calendar year, they are exempt from CBAM obligations.
* **Article 3:** Clarifies the definition of “importer” to include cases where a bill of discharge is presented under a simplified customs procedure.
* **Article 5:** Mandates that indirect customs representatives must obtain authorized CBAM declarant status before importing goods.
* **Article 6:** Extends the deadline for submitting the CBAM declaration to September 30th of each year.
* **Article 7:** Modifies the calculation of embedded emissions, aligning system boundaries with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
* **Article 9:** Clarifies the rules for deducting carbon prices paid in third countries.
* **Article 10:** Specifies the registration process for operators and installations in third countries.
* **Article 10a:** Introduces the registration of accredited verifiers.
* **Article 14:** Modifies the CBAM registry.
* **Article 17:** Introduces the possibility to continue importing goods until the competent authority takes a decision under this Article.
* **Article 20:** Introduces fees payable by authorised CBAM declarants to cover the costs of the common central platform.
* **Article 22:** Reduces the percentage of CBAM certificates that must be on account at the end of each quarter from 80% to 50%.
* **Article 25:** Requires the customs authorities to communicate specific information on the goods declared for importation to the Commission
* **Article 25a:** Introduces monitoring and enforcement of the single mass-based threshold.
* **Article 26:** Specifies the penalties for non-compliance, including cases where incorrect information is provided by third parties.
* **Annex I:** Excludes non-calcined kaolinic clays from the scope of the regulation.
* **Annex II:** Adds electricity to the list of goods for which only direct emissions should be considered.
* **Annex IV:** Modifies the methodology for determining default values.
* **Annex VII:** Introduces a new annex on the single mass-based threshold.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **De Minimis Exemption:** Importers of small quantities (below 50 tonnes annually for certain sectors) will be exempt from CBAM obligations, significantly reducing their administrative burden.
* **Indirect Customs Representatives:** These representatives must now be authorized CBAM declarants, ensuring they are responsible for CBAM compliance.
* **Embedded Emissions Calculation:** The regulation aligns the calculation of embedded emissions with EU ETS rules, simplifying the process for operators in third countries.
* **Carbon Price Deduction:** Clearer rules are provided for deducting carbon prices paid in third countries, potentially reducing the number of CBAM certificates needed.
* **CBAM Registry:** Operators in third countries can register their installations in the CBAM registry, facilitating the sharing of verified emissions data with EU importers.
* **Monitoring and enforcement of the single mass-based threshold:** The Commission shall monitor the imports of goods for the purpose of monitoring the compliance with the single mass-based threshold.
Regulation (EU) 2025/2073 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B
This Regulation (EU) 2025/2073 updates the lists of insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners recognized by EU Member States under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings. The regulation ensures that the annexes accurately reflect the national laws of Member States concerning insolvency, preventive restructuring, and debt discharge procedures. The changes are essential for the cross-border recognition and cooperation in insolvency matters within the EU.
The structure of the act is straightforward: it consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annexes A and B of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 are replaced by the text provided in the annex of this new 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 itself contains the updated lists of insolvency proceedings (Annex A) and insolvency practitioners (Annex B) for each Member State. The changes reflect notifications from Member States such as Slovakia, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Malta, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Czechia and France regarding updates to their national laws.
The most important provision for its use is the updated Annexes A and B, which define the scope of Regulation (EU) 2015/848. These annexes are crucial for determining which insolvency proceedings and practitioners are recognized across the EU, facilitating cooperation and recognition of judgments in cross-border insolvency cases.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1958 of the European Central Bank of 9 September 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/534 on reporting of supervisory financial information (ECB/2015/13) (ECB/2025/31)
Here is the analysis of Regulation (EU) 2025/1958 of the European Central Bank.
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2015/534, focusing on the reporting of supervisory financial information by supervised entities. The key aim is to enhance the oversight of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) by requiring less significant credit institutions to provide additional data points. This will allow the ECB to foster greater comparability in the supervisory review and evaluation process (SREP). The changes affect the granularity and detail of financial information reported, specifically concerning performing and non-performing exposures, as well as forborne exposures.
The regulation consists of two articles and two annexes. Article 1 specifies the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2015/534, focusing on changes to Annex IV (“FINREP data points” under IFRS or National GAAP compatible with IFRS) and Annex V (“FINREP data points” under national accounting frameworks). These annexes are replaced in their entirety by Annex I and Annex II of the new regulation, respectively. Article 2 contains the final provisions, indicating that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 30 December 2025. The core of the changes lies within Annexes I and II, which detail the specific data points and reporting requirements for financial reporting (FINREP) under different accounting standards.
The most important provisions for practical use are the revised Annexes IV and V of Regulation (EU) 2015/534, as amended by Annexes I and II of this regulation. These annexes provide detailed tables specifying the exact data points that less significant credit institutions must report. The updated tables include granular information on the classification of exposures (performing, non-performing, forborne), their respective carrying amounts, and associated accumulated impairments or provisions. Institutions need to carefully review these annexes to ensure their reporting systems are aligned with the new requirements by the effective date.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2025.AirHelp Germany GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delay of flights – Conditions – Article 5(3) – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Concept of ‘reasonable measures’ to avoid extraordinary circumstances or the consequences thereof – Aircraft struck by lightning during the preceding flight and therefore subject to a mandatory inspection.Case C-399/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding air passenger rights, specifically addressing flight delays caused by extraordinary circumstances. The case revolves around a flight delay caused by a lightning strike on the aircraft during its preceding flight, which necessitated mandatory safety inspections. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether such a lightning strike qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance” that would relieve the airline from paying compensation to passengers under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, which deals with compensation for passengers in the event of flight cancellation or long delay. The court examines whether a lightning strike on an aircraft, leading to mandatory safety inspections and subsequent delays, falls under the definition of “extraordinary circumstances.” The Court analyses the conditions under which an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation, focusing on whether the event is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and beyond its control.
The key provision of this judgment is the CJEU’s ruling that a lightning strike on an aircraft, which necessitates mandatory safety inspections, does indeed constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” as defined in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004. However, the air carrier must still demonstrate that it took all reasonable measures to mitigate the consequences of the delay. This means the airline must prove that the delay could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, considering the resources available to the company. The judgment emphasizes that passenger safety is paramount and airlines should not be incentivized to compromise safety for punctuality.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Felicísima v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, Sociedad Anónima Operadora, Sociedad Unipersonal and IATA España SLU.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Carriage by air – Montreal Convention – Article 17(2) – Concept of ‘baggage’ – Article 22(2) – Air carrier liability in the event of loss of baggage – Loss of a passenger’s pet – Compensation for non-material damage.Case C-218/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the Montreal Convention, specifically regarding the loss of a pet during air travel. The case revolves around a passenger, Felicísima, seeking compensation from Iberia airlines for the non-material damage suffered after her dog was lost during a flight. The Spanish court sought clarification on whether a pet can be considered “baggage” under the Montreal Convention and if the Convention’s liability limits for baggage apply to the loss of a pet.
The judgment clarifies that pets are considered “baggage” under Article 17(2) and Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention. This means that the loss of a pet during air travel falls under the liability rules for baggage, not the rules for passengers. The Court emphasizes the importance of a uniform interpretation of “baggage” to ensure consistent application of the Convention across the EU.
The key provision is that Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2), must be interpreted as meaning that pets are not excluded from the concept of ‘baggage’. The judgment confirms that the limitation of liability established in the Montreal Convention also applies to pets as baggage. This means that the air carrier’s liability is limited to a certain amount (Special Drawing Rights) unless the passenger has made a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and paid a supplementary sum. The Court also notes that EU law recognizes animal welfare as an objective of general interest, but this does not prevent animals from being transported as baggage, provided that animal welfare requirements are respected during transport.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 October 2025.A-GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt C.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Anti-dumping – Extended anti-dumping duty – Exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in China – Exemption for the importation of small quantities by small-scale operators – Threshold of 300 units per type of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by a party or delivered to it.Case C-659/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of an EU regulation concerning anti-dumping duties on bicycle parts imported from China. The case revolves around the conditions under which importers can be exempt from these duties, specifically focusing on the exemption for small-scale operators importing small quantities of bicycle parts. The German court (Bundesfinanzhof) asked the CJEU for clarification on how to interpret the rules regarding these exemptions.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses three main questions raised by the German court, concerning Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97, as amended. This regulation provides exemptions to the extended anti-dumping duty on certain bicycle parts originating in China.
* **Question 1:** Can the exemption for small quantities (less than 300 units per month) be combined with other exemptions under the same regulation? The Court ruled that it can.
* **Question 2:** Does the limit of less than 300 units apply per customer or to all customers of the importer combined? The Court clarified that the limit applies to all customers combined.
* **Question 3:** Is the 300-unit threshold an absolute limit, meaning any import above it disqualifies the importer from any exemption, or is it an allowance, where the first 299 units are always exempt? The Court determined that it is an absolute limit; exceeding it means no exemption applies.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important takeaways from this judgment are:
1. **Combining Exemptions:** Importers can potentially benefit from multiple exemptions under Article 14 of Regulation No 88/97 within a single authorization.
2. **Quantity Limit:** The “less than 300 units” rule is a strict limit that applies to the total number of parts imported per month, regardless of how many customers the importer has.
3. **Exceeding the Limit:** If an importer exceeds the 300-unit limit for any type of bicycle part in a month, they lose the exemption from anti-dumping duties for those parts entirely.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 October 2025.PROFIL-COPY 2002 Irodatechnikai Kft. v Közigazgatási és Területfejlesztési Minisztérium.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Economic, social and territorial cohesion – EU funds – Management and control – Obligation for Member States to make arrangements to ensure the effective examination of complaints concerning EU funds – National legislation excluding any judicial remedy against a decision ordering repayment of an EU grant on account of an irregularity – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy.Case C-510/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the right to an effective remedy in the context of EU funds. The case originates from Hungary and concerns a company, Profil-Copy, which was ordered to repay a grant it received from EU funds due to an alleged irregularity. The Hungarian court questioned whether the national legal system provided sufficient judicial protection to the company against the recovery decision.
The judgment clarifies that beneficiaries of EU grants have the right to an effective judicial remedy against decisions ordering them to repay those grants. It also specifies that the possibility to challenge the recovery decision indirectly through a civil action and to seek interim measures to suspend the enforcement of that decision can constitute an effective judicial remedy.
The CJEU emphasizes that national courts must be able to grant interim relief to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law. If national law prevents a court from granting such relief, the court is obliged to set aside that rule. The judgment also points out the importance of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law, which may require national courts to change established case-law if it is incompatible with EU law objectives.
Arrêt de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 16 octobre 2025.#TO contre Agence de l’Union européenne pour l’asile.#Pourvoi – Fonction publique – Agents temporaires – Résiliation du contrat – Rupture du lien de confiance – Harcèlement moral.#Affaire C-576/24 P.
This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) concerning a dispute between TO, a temporary agent, and the European Union Agency for Asylum (AUEA) regarding the termination of TO’s contract.
The judgment addresses TO’s appeal against the decision of the General Court, which had dismissed her action for annulment of the AUEA’s decision to terminate her contract and for compensation for damages. The Court of Justice dismisses TO’s appeal, finding it partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.
The main points of the judgment are:
– **Background of the Dispute:** TO was employed by the AUEA as a temporary agent. Her contract was terminated due to a breakdown of trust, citing issues with communication, inappropriate conduct, intimidation, insubordination, and breaches of confidentiality.
– **The Tribunal’s Decision:** The General Court (Tribunal) upheld the AUEA’s decision, rejecting TO’s claims of violation of her rights.
– **The Appeal:** TO appealed to the Court of Justice, arguing that the General Court had misinterpreted the facts, made errors of assessment, and failed to consider all the evidence.
– **Court of Justice’s Ruling:** The Court of Justice rejected TO’s appeal, finding that she had not sufficiently demonstrated that the General Court had made errors in its assessment of the facts or in its application of the law. The Court found some of TO’s arguments inadmissible because they did not clearly identify the errors in the General Court’s judgment.
– **Costs:** TO was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provisions for its use are that the Court of Justice confirms the possibility of terminating the contract of a temporary agent in case of a breach of the relationship of trust, and also confirms the high level of evidence that the applicant must provide to prove moral harassment.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko v Council of the European Union.Appeal – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Article 2 – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Article 9(2) – Obligation requiring persons subject to a fund-freezing measure to report funds and economic resources – Legal classification of such an obligation – Legal basis – Article 215(2) TFEU – Articles 24, 26 and 29 TEU – Implementation of the common foreign and security policy by the Member States.Case C-805/24 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal concerning restrictive measures against Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko, specifically the freezing of funds and economic resources due to the situation in Ukraine. The appeal challenges an amendment to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which imposed an obligation on persons subject to fund-freezing measures to report their funds and economic resources. The CJEU dismisses the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision that the Council acted within its powers by imposing this reporting obligation.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the legal context, including Regulation No 269/2014 and its amendments, particularly concerning restrictive measures in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It details the specific measures taken against the Timchenkos, including the freezing of their assets.
2. **The contested reporting obligation:** The core of the dispute revolves around Article 9 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, which requires individuals listed in Annex I (i.e., those subject to sanctions) to report their funds and economic resources within the jurisdiction of EU Member States. Failure to comply is considered a circumvention of the restrictive measures.
3. **Grounds of appeal:** The appellants argued that the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting Article 215 TFEU and the Rosneft judgment, claiming the Council exceeded its powers by imposing the reporting obligation without it being explicitly provided for in a CFSP decision. They also argued that the General Court did not give sufficient reasons to address their argument that the Council exceeded its powers.
4. **Decision:** The CJEU rejects both grounds of appeal. It clarifies the division of powers between Article 29 TEU (CFSP decisions) and Article 215 TFEU (implementation of restrictive measures). The Court finds that the reporting obligation is not a new restrictive measure but an implementing measure designed to ensure the uniform and effective application of existing fund-freezing measures across the EU. The Court emphasizes that the Council has the power to adopt measures necessary to implement CFSP decisions, even if those measures entail obligations to act, to ensure the effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
The most important provisions for practical use are:
* **Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014:** This article establishes the core restrictive measure of freezing funds and economic resources of listed individuals and entities.
* **Article 9(2) of Regulation No 269/2014 (as amended):** This provision imposes the obligation on listed individuals and entities to report their funds and economic resources to the competent authorities in Member States. This is the central point of contention in the case.
* **Article 215 TFEU and Article 29 TEU:** These articles define the legal basis and division of powers between the EU’s foreign policy decisions and the implementation of restrictive measures.
**** This judgment confirms the EU’s broad powers to implement restrictive measures in response to the situation in Ukraine, including imposing obligations on individuals subject to sanctions to report their assets. This has direct implications for individuals and entities listed in Annex I of Regulation No 269/2014, as they must comply with the reporting obligation to avoid being considered as circumventing the sanctions.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Asociación de Empresarios de Salones de Juego y Recreativos de la Comunidad Valenciana (Anesar-CV) v Conselleria de Hacienda y Modelo Económico de la Generalitat Valenciana and Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Article 49 TFEU – Restrictions – Games of chance – Regional legislation – Minimal distances between different gaming establishments and between certain gaming establishments and educational establishments – Time limit on the operation of slot machines and other amusement machines with prizes – Moratorium on the allocation of new licences or operating authorisations – Justification – Proportionality.Case C-718/23.
This document is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding several requests for a preliminary ruling concerning Spanish regional legislation on games of chance. The cases were brought by various gaming operators against the Finance and Economic Model Ministry of the Government of the Community of Valencia, challenging the legality of certain restrictions imposed by the regional legislation.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment addresses whether specific provisions of the Valencian Community’s law regulating gaming and preventing problem gambling are compatible with EU law, specifically the freedom of establishment. The challenged provisions include minimum distances between gaming establishments and educational centers, time limits on slot machine operations, and a moratorium on new gaming licenses. The CJEU assesses whether these restrictions are justified and proportionate in light of public interest objectives such as consumer protection and preventing gambling addiction.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** Identifies the requests for preliminary rulings and the parties involved.
* **Legal Framework:** Describes the relevant Spanish laws, specifically Law 1/2020 and Decree 97/2021 of the Valencian Community, which regulate gaming and aim to prevent problem gambling. Key provisions include:
* Restrictions on advertising and commercial information related to gaming.
* Minimum distances between gaming halls, betting establishments, and educational centers (850 meters between gaming establishments and schools, and 500 meters between gaming establishments).
* A moratorium on new authorizations for gaming establishments and category B machines (amusement machines with prizes).
* Regulations for the renewal of licenses for gaming establishments that do not meet the distance requirements.
* **Disputes in the Main Proceedings and Questions Referred:** Summarizes the arguments of the gaming operators who claim the regional legislation unduly restricts their freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. It also outlines the questions posed by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (High Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia) to the CJEU.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses arguments that the requests for preliminary rulings are inadmissible because the disputes are confined to a single Member State. The CJEU concludes that the requests are admissible because the regional law applies to both national and foreign entities.
* **Substance:**
* **Preliminary Observations:** Clarifies that the relevant EU law is Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment).
* **Restriction on Freedom:** Determines that the measures in question constitute restrictions on the freedom of establishment.
* **Justification for Restrictions:** Acknowledges that the objectives of the regional legislation (protecting public health, preventing gambling addiction, protecting vulnerable groups) can be legitimate reasons for restricting fundamental freedoms.
* **Proportionality of Restrictions:** Assesses whether the restrictions are suitable for achieving the objectives and do not go beyond what is necessary. The CJEU provides guidance to the national court for making this assessment, considering factors such as the factual basis for the measures, the existence of other less restrictive measures, and the specific situation of existing gaming establishments.
* **Ruling:** The CJEU rules that Article 49 TFEU does not preclude the national legislation in question, provided that the national court concludes that the restrictions are justified, suitable, and proportionate.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on the following main provisions of the Valencian legislation:
* **Minimum Distance Requirements:** The requirement of maintaining a minimum distance of 850 meters between gaming establishments and educational centers, and 500 meters between different gaming establishments.
* **Moratorium on New Licenses:** The suspension of new authorizations for gaming establishments and category B machines for a maximum period of five years.
* **Restrictions on Category B Machines:** The limitations on renewing licenses for category B machines in the horeca sector.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* **Balancing Freedom of Establishment with Public Interest:** The CJEU reaffirms that Member States have a wide discretion in regulating gambling activities to protect public health and social order. However, these regulations must be non-discriminatory, justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and proportionate.
* **Proportionality Assessment:** The judgment provides guidance on how to assess the proportionality of restrictions on gaming activities. This includes considering the suitability of the measures for achieving the objectives, their necessity, and whether they go beyond what is necessary.
* **Impact on Existing Establishments:** The judgment acknowledges that applying new distance requirements to existing establishments can be a restriction on freedom of establishment. However, it also notes that giving existing establishments a competitive advantage over new entrants could hinder market access.
* **Moratorium on Licenses:** The CJEU confirms that a moratorium on new licenses can be justified if it is intended to bring about a genuine diminution of gambling opportunities and limit activities in a consistent and systematic manner.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Braila Winds SRL v DGRFP București – Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii București and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 191(2) TFEU – EU policy on the environment – Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 – EU climate-neutrality objective – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Common rules for the internal market for electricity – National legislation imposing an income tax on producers of electricity from renewable sources – Exemption for producers of electricity from fossil fuels and biomass.Case C-391/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling from Romania. The case revolves around a Romanian law that taxes the income of electricity producers from renewable sources, while exempting producers using fossil fuels and biomass. The CJEU was asked to clarify whether this tax is compatible with EU law, particularly concerning state aid, freedom of establishment and services, internal electricity market rules, and environmental principles.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, identifying the Romanian court and the parties involved (Brăila Winds SRL vs. Romanian tax authorities).
* It then summarizes the questions posed by the Romanian court, which concern the interpretation of several EU law provisions, including Articles 49, 56, 107, 108 and 191(2) TFEU, Article 17 of the Charter, Directive 2019/944, and Regulation 2021/1119.
* The judgment proceeds to address the admissibility of the questions, declaring the first two questions inadmissible due to lack of sufficient information and hypothetical nature.
* It then provides answers to the third and fourth questions, interpreting Directive 2019/944 and Regulation 2021/1119.
* Finally, it concludes with a ruling that clarifies the interpretation of EU law in relation to the Romanian tax.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The core of the judgment focuses on the interpretation of Directive 2019/944 on the internal electricity market and Regulation 2021/1119 on climate neutrality. The Court concludes that the Romanian tax, which differentiates between renewable and fossil fuel/biomass electricity producers, does not violate these EU laws.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
The most important takeaways from this judgment are:
* **Directive 2019/944:** The Court clarifies that this directive, aimed at creating a competitive and integrated electricity market, does not prevent Member States from imposing taxes on electricity producers, even if it affects their income. The directive does not seek to harmonize tax systems.
* **Regulation 2021/1119:** The Court states that this regulation, establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality by 2050, does not preclude national measures that differentiate between energy sources for taxation purposes. The regulation sets an overall strategy, and individual measures must be assessed within the broader context of a Member State’s efforts to achieve climate neutrality.
* **Article 191(2) TFEU:** The Court reiterates that the environmental principles in this article are addressed to the EU legislature and cannot be directly invoked by individuals to challenge national legislation.
In essence, the CJEU’s judgment provides Member States with some flexibility in designing their energy taxation policies, even if those policies differentiate between renewable and non-renewable energy sources, as long as they are consistent with the overall objectives of EU law.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission.Appeal – State aid – State measure extending gambling licences granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands – Decision of the European Commission not to raise objections – Rejection of a complaint – No examination of the existence of a potential indirect advantage – Scope of the Commission’s duty to carry out an examination – Obligation to state reasons.Case C-59/24 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding a State aid case involving the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA). The case concerns the extension of gambling licenses granted by the Netherlands and whether this extension constituted unlawful State aid. The European Commission initially decided not to raise objections to the extension, but EGBA challenged this decision.
The judgment revolves around an appeal by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against a previous ruling by the General Court, which had annulled the Commission’s decision. The core issue is whether the Commission adequately examined the potential for indirect advantages resulting from the license extensions, specifically to charities that receive proceeds from gambling activities. The Court of Justice ultimately dismisses the Netherlands’ appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision.
The key provisions discussed in the judgment include articles from Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, particularly those defining “interested party” and outlining the Commission’s duties in preliminary examinations of State aid measures. The judgment also references the Commission Notice on the notion of State aid, specifically paragraphs concerning indirect advantages. The Court examines whether the Commission adequately investigated potential indirect advantages to charities and whether EGBA, as a complainant, had the right to raise this issue. The Court finds that the Commission should have examined whether the measure at issue conferred an indirect advantage on bodies that serve the common interest and that the failure to examine that question in the decision at issue did not make it possible to rule out the existence of serious difficulties.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2025.Polismyndigheten v Konkurrensverket.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 72 – Modification of a framework agreement during its term – Value of the modification below the values laid down in Article 72(2) – Modification of the remuneration model of a framework agreement – Substantial modification of a framework agreement – Alteration of the overall nature of a framework agreement.Case C-282/24.
This document is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the EU Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, specifically Article 72 concerning the modification of contracts and framework agreements during their term. The case originates from Sweden and involves a dispute over the modification of a framework agreement for vehicle towing services. The Swedish Police Authority modified the remuneration model in the agreement, and the Swedish Competition Authority challenged this modification, arguing it required a new procurement procedure.
The judgment focuses on clarifying when a modification to a framework agreement is considered so significant that it alters the “overall nature” of the agreement, thus requiring a new procurement process. The key issue is whether a change to the remuneration model, specifically altering the balance between fixed and variable prices, constitutes such a fundamental alteration. The Court interprets Article 72(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU, which allows for modifications without a new procurement procedure if the value of the modification is below certain thresholds and does not alter the overall nature of the agreement.
The Court rules that a modification to the remuneration model does not automatically alter the overall nature of the framework agreement unless it leads to a fundamental change in the balance of the agreement. The Court emphasizes that the concept of “overall nature” is distinct from that of a “substantial modification.” The Court also clarifies that the mere fact that a modification might have influenced the outcome of the initial procurement procedure does not automatically mean it alters the overall nature of the agreement. The judgment provides guidance on how to interpret the conditions under which modifications to public contracts and framework agreements require a new procurement procedure, balancing the need for flexibility with the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2025.European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Access to the international market for coach and bus services – Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 – Article 2(4) and (7) and Article 15(b) – Cabotage operations by coach and bus in the context of occasional services – National measures of application introducing a maximum period of seven consecutive days in one calendar month – Margin of discretion – Proportionality.Case C-482/23.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-482/23, concerning an action brought by the European Commission against the Kingdom of Denmark. The Commission argued that Denmark failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 by restricting cabotage operations (domestic transport services performed by non-resident carriers) for coach and bus services to a maximum period of seven consecutive days within one calendar month. The Court ultimately dismissed the Commission’s action, finding that Denmark’s practice was within its margin of discretion and did not violate the principle of proportionality.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the Commission’s claim and the legal context, including relevant articles from Regulations (EC) No 1072/2009 and No 1073/2009. It then details the Danish law in question, which is an administrative practice limiting cabotage operations. The judgment proceeds to describe the pre-litigation procedure and the arguments presented by both the Commission and Denmark, as well as the interveners (EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland, and Norway). Finally, the Court presents its findings, ruling that Member States have the freedom to adopt national measures of application for Regulation No 1073/2009 to clarify the concept of ‘cabotage operations’. It also finds that the Danish practice is appropriate for attaining the objective of the Regulation and does not go beyond what is necessary, thus respecting the principle of proportionality.
The most important provision of the judgment is the Court’s confirmation that Member States have a margin of discretion to implement national measures clarifying the scope of “cabotage operations” under Regulation No 1073/2009, even though the regulation does not explicitly authorize such measures. The Court also emphasized that any such measures must adhere to the principle of proportionality, meaning they must be appropriate for achieving the regulation’s objectives and not exceed what is necessary to achieve them. This clarifies the extent to which Member States can regulate cabotage operations within their territories.
