Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2150
This regulation adjusts the financial thresholds for public procurement contracts in the utilities sectors (water, energy, transport, and postal services). Specifically, it lowers the threshold for supply and service contracts to EUR 432,000 and for works contracts to EUR 5,404,000. These revised thresholds determine when the procurement rules of Directive 2014/25/EU apply. The changes, effective from January 1, 2026, are intended to align EU law with the Agreement on Government Procurement under the World Trade Organization.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2152
This regulation amends Directive 2014/24/EU, setting new financial thresholds for public contracts. The threshold for works contracts is lowered to EUR 5,404,000. For supply and service contracts, the threshold for central government authorities is reduced to EUR 140,000, and for sub-central contracting authorities, it goes down to EUR 216,000. Works concessions now have a threshold of EUR 5,404,000, while service concessions are set at EUR 216,000. Effective January 1, 2026, these adjusted thresholds dictate when Directive 2014/24/EU’s rules apply to public procurement.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2151
This regulation adjusts the financial threshold for concession contracts under Directive 2014/23/EU. Effective January 1, 2026, the new threshold is set at EUR 5,404,000. Any concession contract above this amount falls under the Directive’s regulations, ensuring transparency and fair competition.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2153
This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of screws without heads originating from the People’s Republic of China. Varying duty rates are specified for different Chinese producers, with a general rate applied to all other companies. The regulation also finalizes the collection of provisional duties already imposed and applies definitive duties on registered imports. A valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration is required for the application of individual duty rates. Furthermore, the regulation allows for the future inclusion of new Chinese exporting producers under certain conditions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2146
This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China. The duty is extended to bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Cambodia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, regardless of declared origin. Specific duty rates are set for named companies, with a general rate for all other imports from China. The regulation also maintains the anti-dumping duty on certain bicycle parts from China. A valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration is required for individual duty rate applications or exemptions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2145
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2746, adjusting the rules for the Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN). It revises economic size thresholds for Bulgaria and the number of returning holdings for Bulgaria per FSDN division. Modifications to Annex VIII address data reporting, including separate reporting of interest earned on liquid assets, harmonized codes for animal housing types, clarified reporting of soil texture, and refined reporting requirements for plant protection product and antimicrobial use. Annexes IX and X reflect exemptions for Germany and France from submitting data on specific variables for the 2026 and 2027 reporting years.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2097
This regulation approves modifications to 27 traditional terms used in the wine sector originating from the Czech Republic. These terms will be updated in the electronic register of protected traditional terms.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2104
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2029, concerning the administrative details of the Union authorization for the single biocidal product ‘CVAS Disinfectant product based on Propan-2-ol’. The changes include updates to the authorization holder’s address, one of the manufacturer’s addresses, and the addition of two new production sites. The updated Annex provides a comprehensive summary of the product’s characteristics.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2144
This regulation mandates the registration of imports of pea protein originating in the People’s Republic of China. This measure is in response to the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding and enables the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the investigation confirms dumping practices. Customs authorities are directed to register these imports, specifying the product’s characteristics and relevant customs codes.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2138
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, updating the list of control bodies competent to issue organic certificates in third countries for importing organic products into the EU. It adds new entities and expands the scope of recognition for existing ones to include specific product categories and third countries, ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2118
This regulation reimposes a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye. This action follows a judgment by the General Court and adjusts the duty rates for specific Turkish exporting producers, with instructions for customs to collect the appropriate amounts and refund any excess collected previously.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union – Case T-1148/23
The General Court dismissed an action by Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the European Commission’s decision rejecting a request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574, which establishes the procedure for identifying unacceptable co-formulants in plant protection products. The Court upheld the Commission’s decision, clarifying the division of powers between the Commission and Member States in assessing co-formulants and the scope of the regulation.
Judgment of the General Court – Case T-491/24 (Puma v EUIPO)
The General Court annulled EUIPO’s decision in a trademark dispute between Puma SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) over the “CMS Italy” mark. The court found that EUIPO failed to properly assess the strength of the reputation of Puma’s earlier marks featuring a bounding feline when considering whether the “CMS Italy” mark infringed on Puma’s trademarks. The court clarified that when EUIPO uses terms like “at least” or “at most” to describe the strength of a trademark’s reputation, it must explicitly consider the best-case scenario for the losing party.
Judgment of the General Court on Excise Duty Directive (92/83/EEC)
The General Court ruled on a case concerning the interpretation of Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC (Excise Duty Directive). The court determined that Member States cannot make the excise duty exemption for ethyl alcohol used in flavourings conditional on demonstrable use of the flavourings in food and non-alcoholic beverages; the intended use is sufficient.
Judgment of the General Court on Restrictive Measures against Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev
The General Court annulled Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768, which extended restrictive measures against Mr. Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev, due to errors in the Council’s assessment of the facts regarding his current business interests in Belarus and his relationship with President Lukashenko. The court concluded that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mr. Gutseriev continued to benefit from or support the regime at the time the restrictive measures were extended. The judgment emphasized the need for a solid factual basis for imposing and extending restrictive measures.
Judgment of the General Court on EU Trademark Dispute – Case T-113/24 (Danger Group Co. Ltd v EUIPO)
The General Court dismissed the action brought by Danger Group Co. Ltd against EUIPO, upholding the cancellation of their EU trademark “Danger” due to an earlier Spanish trademark held by Carlos Heredia Casanella. The court emphasized that explicit consent from the prior trademark holder is required for the registration of the EU trademark, and Danger Group Co. Ltd did not provide evidence of such consent, as stipulated by Article 60(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community (2025-2029)
This Protocol sets out the specific rules and conditions for EU vessels to fish in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe from 2025 to 2029. It details the fishing opportunities available, the financial contribution from the EU (EUR 3,300,000), and how that money will support the development of the fisheries sector in São Tomé and Príncipe. The Protocol emphasizes non-discrimination, sustainable development, and adherence to international labor standards for fishers. Key provisions include fishing authorization procedures, catch reporting requirements, monitoring and control measures, employment of ACP fishers, and data protection measures.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2150 of 22 October 2025 amending Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the thresholds for supply, service and works contracts, and design contests for the years 2026-2027
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2150 revises the financial thresholds for supply, service, and works contracts, as well as design contests, within the utilities sectors (water, energy, transport, and postal services). These thresholds determine when the procurement rules outlined in Directive 2014/25/EU apply. The revision is necessary to align EU law with the Agreement on Government Procurement concluded within the framework of the World Trade Organization, which aims to open government procurement markets among its parties.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 amends Article 15 of Directive 2014/25/EU by adjusting the threshold amounts. Specifically, it lowers the threshold for supply and service contracts from EUR 443,000 to EUR 432,000, and the threshold for works contracts from EUR 5,538,000 to EUR 5,404,000. Article 2 establishes the entry into force and application date of the Regulation. It will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 1 January 2026.
The most important provision is the revised thresholds outlined in Article 1. Contracting entities operating in the utilities sectors need to be aware of these new thresholds from 1 January 2026, as they determine when the procurement procedures of Directive 2014/25/EU must be followed. Any procurement contract above the revised thresholds will be subject to the Directive’s rules, ensuring transparency and competition in the tendering process.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2152 of 22 October 2025 amending Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the thresholds for public supply, service and works contracts, and design contests for the years 2026-2027
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2152 amends Directive 2014/24/EU, adjusting the financial thresholds for public supply, service, and works contracts, as well as design contests. These adjustments are necessary to align EU law with the Agreement on Government Procurement concluded within the framework of the World Trade Organization, ensuring that EU contracting authorities comply with their international obligations. The revised thresholds will apply for the years 2026 and 2027, starting from 1 January 2026.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 directly amends specific articles within Directive 2014/24/EU, specifically Article 4 and Article 13, by replacing the existing contract value thresholds with new, lower amounts. Article 2 establishes the entry into force and the date of application of the Regulation. The key changes involve reducing the thresholds in Article 4 for works contracts from EUR 5,538,000 to EUR 5,404,000, for supply and service contracts awarded by central government authorities from EUR 143,000 to EUR 140,000, and for supply and service contracts awarded by sub-central contracting authorities from EUR 221,000 to EUR 216,000. Similarly, in Article 13, the thresholds are adjusted for works concessions from EUR 5,538,000 to EUR 5,404,000 and for service concessions from EUR 221,000 to EUR 216,000.
The most important provision for those involved in public procurement is the adjusted financial thresholds, which determine when the rules of Directive 2014/24/EU apply. Contracting authorities and economic operators need to be aware of these new thresholds to ensure compliance with EU procurement rules for contracts awarded from 1 January 2026 onwards.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2151 of 22 October 2025 amending Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the thresholds for concessions for the years 2026-2027
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2151 amends Directive 2014/23/EU, specifically concerning the financial thresholds that determine when concession contracts are subject to the rules outlined in the Directive. The adjustment is made to ensure alignment with the Agreement on Government Procurement under the World Trade Organization. The new threshold will apply from 1 January 2026.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 directly amends Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/23/EU, replacing the existing threshold of EUR 5,538,000 with EUR 5,404,000. Article 2 establishes the entry into force and the date of application of the Regulation. There are no substantial changes to the structure of the original directive.
The most important provision is the revised threshold of EUR 5,404,000. This figure determines whether a concession contract falls within the scope of Directive 2014/23/EU. Any concession contract above this value will be subject to the Directive’s rules on advertising, transparency, and fair competition.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2153 of 22 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China, and levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China
This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2153 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China. It also finalizes the collection of provisional duties already imposed and levies definitive anti-dumping duties on registered imports of these screws. The regulation follows an anti-dumping investigation initiated after a complaint by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (EIFI).
The regulation consists of several sections that outline the procedure, product definition, dumping analysis, injury assessment, causation, level of measures, Union interest, and definitive anti-dumping measures. It begins by detailing the initiation of the investigation, registration of imports, and imposition of provisional measures. It addresses claims regarding the scope of the product, specifically the exclusion of certain types of screws. The regulation then delves into the determination of dumping, including the normal value and export price, and establishes dumping margins for various Chinese exporting producers. It assesses the injury to the Union industry, examines the causation between the dumped imports and the injury, and determines the level of measures needed to counteract the injury. Finally, it considers the Union interest and imposes definitive anti-dumping measures.
The most important provisions of this act are:
– **Article 1**: Establishes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China. The duty rates vary depending on the producer, with a general rate for “all other companies.” It also specifies the condition for applying individual duty rates, which requires a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
– **Article 2**: Orders the definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed earlier.
– **Article 3**: Imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on registered imports of the screws, applicable from 19 March 2025.
– **Article 4**: Allows for the amendment of Article 1(2) to include new exporting producers from China, subject to meeting certain conditions.
– **Annex**: Lists the Chinese cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample, each with a specific TARIC additional code.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2146 of 22 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2146, which imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China. This duty is extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Cambodia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, regardless of whether they are declared as originating from these countries. The regulation follows an expiry review of existing measures.
The regulation consists of several articles and recitals that explain the reasons and basis for imposing the anti-dumping duty. It begins by outlining the procedure, including previous investigations, the request for an expiry review, and the initiation of the review. It defines the product under review as non-motorized bicycles and other cycles, excluding unicycles, and confirms that the products produced in China and the Union are like products. The regulation addresses a request for a name change from Oyama Technology (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd to Oyama Technology (Nantong) Co., Ltd, ensuring that the change does not affect the applicable anti-dumping duty rate. It then details the dumping analysis, including the determination of normal value based on costs of production and sale in Serbia, an appropriate representative country. The regulation finds that dumping has continued and is likely to continue if measures are allowed to lapse. It also assesses the injury to the Union industry, finding that the industry has suffered material injury and that this injury is likely to continue without the measures. Finally, it concludes that maintaining the anti-dumping measures is in the Union interest.
The most important provisions of this act are:
– **Article 1**: Imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in China and extends it to bicycles consigned from other countries. It specifies the duty rates for named companies and a general rate for all other imports from China. It also maintains the extension of the anti-dumping duty to certain bicycle parts originating in China.
– **Article 2**: Amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 to reflect the name change of Oyama Technology and ensures the continuity of the applicable duty rate.
– **Article 1(6)**: Requires a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration for the application of individual duty rates or exemptions, ensuring proper enforcement and preventing circumvention.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2145 of 21 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2746 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up the Farm Sustainability Data Network and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/220
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2145 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2746, which lays down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up the Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN). The amendments address necessary adjustments to economic size thresholds, the number of returning holdings for Bulgaria, and the reporting of sustainability data. The goal is to refine data collection and ensure accuracy and comparability across Member States.
The Regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes I, II, VIII, IX, and X to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2746 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 specifies that the Regulation will enter 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 all Member States. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes I, II, VIII, IX, and X of the original Implementing Regulation. These amendments include:
* Revised economic size threshold for Bulgaria in Annex I.
* Adjusted number of returning holdings for Bulgaria per FSDN division in Annex II.
* Modifications to Annex VIII regarding data reporting, including separate reporting of interest earned on liquid assets, harmonized codes for animal housing types, clarified reporting of soil texture, and refined reporting requirements for plant protection product and antimicrobial use.
* Amendments to Annexes IX and X to reflect additional justified requests by Germany and France for exemptions from submitting data on specific variables for the reporting years 2026 and 2027.
The most important provisions for users are the changes to Annex VIII, which detail how sustainability data must be reported. Specifically, the separate reporting of interest earned on liquid assets, the harmonized codes for animal housing types, the clarified reporting of soil texture, and the refined reporting requirements for plant protection product and antimicrobial use are key for accurate data submission. Additionally, the exemptions granted to Germany and France in Annexes IX and X for certain data variables in reporting years 2026 and 2027 are important for those Member States.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2097 of 21 October 2025 approving modifications of traditional terms in the wine sector in accordance with Article 115(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Archivní víno, Burčák, Jakostní likérové víno, Jakostní šumivé víno stanovené oblasti (or Sekt s. o.), Jakostní víno, Jakostní víno odrůdové, Jakostní víno s přívlastkem, Jakostní víno známkové, Klaret, Košer (or Košer víno), Krášleno na kvasnicích, Labín, Mešní víno, Mladé víno, Panenská sklizeň, Panenské víno, Pěstitelský sekt, Pozdní sběr, Premium, Rezerva, Růžák, Ryšák, Školeno na kvasnicích, Víno originální certifikace (VOC or V.O.C.), Víno s přívlastkem, Zemské víno, Zrálo na kvasnicích)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2097 approves modifications to 27 traditional terms used in the wine sector. These terms, originating from the Czech Republic, include names like ‘Archivní víno’, ‘Burčák’, and ‘Pozdní sběr’. The approval follows an examination by the Commission and the absence of any objections. The updated terms will be entered into the electronic register of protected traditional terms.
The regulation consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and the process followed for approving the modifications, and two articles. Article 1 formally approves the modifications to the 27 traditional terms listed. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but rather updates existing ones related to traditional terms in the wine sector.
The most important provision is Article 1, which lists all the traditional terms for which modifications have been approved. This is crucial for wine producers and consumers, as it defines the legally recognized terms that can be used to describe and market specific types of wine from the Czech Republic.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2104 of 21 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2029 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product CVAS Disinfectant product based on Propan-2-ol
This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2104 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2029. The amendment concerns administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘CVAS Disinfectant product based on Propan-2-ol’. These changes include updates to the address of the authorisation holder, the address of one of the manufacturers, and the addition of two new production sites.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2029 is replaced entirely by the text set out in the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 states that this regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides a consolidated summary of the biocidal product characteristics, incorporating all the administrative changes.
The main provision of this act is the updated Annex, which provides a comprehensive summary of the characteristics of ‘CVAS Disinfectant product based on Propan-2-ol’. This includes administrative information (trade names, authorisation holder, manufacturers), product composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorised uses (including target organisms, fields of use, application methods, rates, user categories, and pack sizes), general directions for use, risk mitigation measures, first aid instructions, and disposal and storage conditions. The updated Annex replaces the previous one in its entirety to ensure clarity and ease of access for users.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2144 of 21 October 2025 making imports of pea protein originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2144 concerns the registration of imports of pea protein originating in the People’s Republic of China. The regulation is triggered by the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding and aims to enable the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the investigation confirms dumping practices. It directs customs authorities to register these imports, which will allow for the collection of duties retroactively should the investigation determine it necessary.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 mandates the registration of pea protein imports from China, specifying the product’s characteristics and relevant CN and TARIC codes. It also sets a nine-month expiration for the registration requirement. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.
The most important provision is Article 1, which directs customs authorities to register imports of high protein content pea protein from China. This registration is critical because it opens the door for potential retroactive anti-dumping duties if the ongoing investigation concludes that the product is being dumped on the EU market. The regulation specifies the exact type of pea protein subject to registration based on its protein content, origin, and customs classification codes.
Commission Implementing Regulation (eu) 2025/2138 of 21 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378 as regards the recognition of certain control bodies in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council as competent to carry out controls and issue organic certificates in third countries for the purpose of imports of organic products into the Union
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2138 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, focusing on the recognition of control bodies competent to conduct controls and issue organic certificates in third countries for the purpose of importing organic products into the EU. The regulation updates the list of recognized control authorities and bodies, adding new entities and extending the scope of recognition for existing ones to include specific product categories and third countries. This ensures that organic products imported into the EU meet the standards set by Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force. The Annex provides specific amendments to Annex II of the original regulation, including the addition of new control bodies like ‘AfriCert Limited’, ‘Organic T&C, L.L.C.’, ‘Q-Check Private Company’ and ‘SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROMOTION SOCIETY (SAPS)’, and updates the entries for existing control bodies such as ‘Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers, Inc. (FOG), DBA as Quality Certification Services (QCS)’, ‘IMOCERT Latinoamérica Ltda.’, ‘Kiwa BCS Öko-Garantie GmbH’, ‘Organic Control System LLC Subotica’, ‘ORSER KONTROL VE SERTİFİKASYON ANONİM ȘİRKETİ’ and ‘Southern Cross Certified Australia Pty Ltd’ with their respective code numbers, recognized third countries, and product categories.
The most important provisions for practical use are the updated lists of recognized control bodies, their corresponding code numbers, the third countries for which they are authorized, and the specific categories of organic products they are certified to control. Businesses involved in importing organic products into the EU need to ensure that their products are certified by a control body listed in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1378, as amended by this regulation, to comply with EU regulations. The correct code numbers and product categories must be verified to ensure compliance.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2118 of 21 October 2025 reimposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in case T-122/23
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2118 reimposes a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye. This action follows a judgment by the General Court of the European Union in case T-122/23, which partially annulled a previous regulation due to errors in assessing benefits received by certain Turkish exporting producers. The regulation aims to rectify these errors and ensure fair trade practices.
The regulation is structured to address the issues raised by the General Court’s judgment. It begins by referencing previous investigations and measures in place, followed by a detailed explanation of the General Court’s judgment and the necessary steps to implement it. The core of the regulation lies in reimposing the countervailing duties, adjusted to reflect the Court’s findings. It specifies the rates applicable to various Turkish companies and outlines procedures for reimbursement of duties paid in excess under the previous regulation. Compared to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390, this regulation adjusts the countervailing duty rates for specific companies, based on the General Court’s findings regarding the “Exhibition Support Scheme” and the “Aegean Exporters’ Association support.”
The most important provisions for practical use are those specifying the revised countervailing duty rates for each listed Turkish exporting producer and the instructions for customs authorities to collect the appropriate amounts on imports, refunding any excess collected under the previous regulation. Additionally, the regulation addresses the registration of imports and the discontinuation thereof, ensuring a smooth transition to the revised duty rates.
Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 22 octobre 2025.#Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) contre Commission européenne.#Produits phytopharmaceutiques – Modalités d’identification des coformulants inacceptables dans les produits phytopharmaceutiques – Règlement d’exécution (UE) 2023/574 – Rejet de la demande de réexamen interne – Article 10, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1367/2006 – Contrôle des coformulants – Article 27 du règlement (CE) no 1107/2009.#Affaire T-1148/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union from October 22, 2025, in Case T-1148/23, concerning the action brought by Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the European Commission, supported by CropLife Europe.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns PAN Europe’s challenge to the European Commission’s decision rejecting its request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574. This regulation establishes the procedure for identifying unacceptable co-formulants in plant protection products. PAN Europe argued that the regulation does not ensure effective control over co-formulants and restricts the Commission’s power to independently assess their acceptability. The General Court dismissed PAN Europe’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes the legal framework, including Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574.
* **Facts:** Outlines the events leading to the legal action, including PAN Europe’s request for internal review and the Commission’s rejection.
* **Arguments:** Summarizes the arguments presented by PAN Europe, the Commission, and CropLife Europe.
* **Legal Assessment:** The Court’s analysis is divided into two main parts:
* **Preliminary Observations:** Discusses the nature of actions based on Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (the Aarhus Regulation) and the scope of judicial review.
* **Substance:** Examines PAN Europe’s claims regarding the Commission’s preliminary remarks and the specific grounds for review.
* **Decision:** The Court dismisses PAN Europe’s action and orders it to pay the costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on the interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574. Key provisions discussed include:
* **Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009:** Concerns co-formulants and the criteria for their acceptability in plant protection products.
* **Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574:** Establishes the procedure for identifying unacceptable co-formulants.
The judgment clarifies the division of powers between the Commission and Member States in assessing co-formulants. It confirms that Member States are primarily responsible for evaluating plant protection products, including their co-formulants, during the authorization process. The Commission’s role is to identify unacceptable co-formulants based on information from Member States and to list them in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The judgment is most important for understanding:
* **The scope of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574:** It clarifies that the regulation primarily establishes a procedure for identifying unacceptable co-formulants and does not impose new data requirements or restrict the Commission’s power to independently assess co-formulants.
* **The division of powers between the Commission and Member States:** It confirms that Member States have the primary responsibility for evaluating plant protection products, including their co-formulants, during the authorization process.
* **The limits of judicial review:** It emphasizes that the General Court’s role is to assess whether the Commission correctly decided that PAN Europe had not raised plausible doubts about the legality of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/574.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2025.Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark CMS Italy – Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding to the left – Relative ground for refusal – Injury to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Strength of reputation – Obligation on EUIPO expressly to take into account the best-case scenario for the losing party before it – Duty of diligence.Case T-491/24.
This is the judgment of the General Court in the case T-491/24 between Puma SE and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case concerns an opposition filed by Puma against the registration of the figurative mark “CMS Italy” based on Puma’s earlier figurative marks featuring a bounding feline. The core issue is whether the “CMS Italy” mark infringes on Puma’s trademarks, specifically focusing on whether the use of the “CMS Italy” mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of Puma’s earlier marks.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: the General Court reviews the background of the dispute, including the marks in question, the goods and services they cover, and the history of the opposition proceedings. The court then considers Puma’s plea that EUIPO’s decision infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, which concerns the protection of trademarks with a reputation. The court focuses on whether EUIPO correctly assessed the strength of the reputation of Puma’s earlier marks. The General Court annuls EUIPO’s decision, finding that EUIPO failed to properly consider the best-case scenario for Puma regarding the strength of its trademarks’ reputation.
The most important provision of the judgment is the court’s interpretation of how EUIPO must assess the reputation of earlier marks in opposition proceedings under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. The court clarifies that when EUIPO uses terms like “at least” or “at most” to describe the strength of a trademark’s reputation, it must explicitly consider the best-case scenario for the “losing party” (i.e., the party whose arguments are being rejected). In this case, because EUIPO found that Puma’s marks had “at least an average degree of reputation,” it was obligated to expressly consider whether the marks might actually have a “very high” degree of reputation and then assess the likelihood of a link between the marks and potential injury to Puma’s trademarks under that higher degree of reputation.
Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 22 October 2025.AROCO, spol. s r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Directive 92/83/EEC – Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Excise duties – Ethyl alcohol – Exemptions – Article 27(1)(e) – Production of flavourings containing ethyl alcohol for the preparation of foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% – Possibility for the Member States to make that exemption subject to conditions.Case T-614/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the interpretation of the Excise Duty Directive (92/83/EEC), specifically concerning exemptions for ethyl alcohol used in flavourings. The case originated from a dispute in the Czech Republic about whether excise duty should be applied to ethyl alcohol contained in flavourings. The Czech tax authority denied an exemption because the flavourings were sold not only to end-users but also to retailers.
The judgment focuses on Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, which allows Member States to exempt products from excise duty when used for producing flavourings for foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages (up to 1.2% alcohol). The court examines whether this exemption can be conditional on the flavourings being demonstrably used for the specified purpose, rather than merely being intended for that purpose. It also considers whether the Czech legislation’s conditions for exemption are justified and proportionate.
The court ruled that Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC *precludes* national legislation that makes the excise duty exemption conditional on *demonstrable use* of the flavourings in food and non-alcoholic beverages, rather than their *intended use*. The court emphasized that the objective of the exemptions is to neutralize the impact of excise duties on alcohol used as an intermediate product. Making the exemption conditional on actual end-use would undermine this objective. The court also noted that EU law considers the exemption to be the rule, and refusal of the exemption the exception.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2025.Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Error of assessment.Case T-233/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev, a Russian businessman, in relation to Belarus.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768, which extended restrictive measures against Mr. Gutseriev, including the freezing of funds and restrictions on entry into the EU, due to his alleged support for the Lukashenko regime in Belarus. The General Court found that the Council made errors in its assessment of the facts, particularly regarding Mr. Gutseriev’s current business interests in Belarus and his relationship with President Lukashenko. The court concluded that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mr. Gutseriev continued to benefit from or support the regime at the time the restrictive measures were extended.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by identifying the parties and the legal acts being challenged.
* It provides background to the dispute, including the history of restrictive measures against Belarus and the specific criteria for imposing measures on individuals.
* It outlines the Council’s reasons for including Mr. Gutseriev on the sanctions lists, citing his business interests in Belarus, his relationship with President Lukashenko, and his involvement in certain events.
* It details Mr. Gutseriev’s arguments for annulling the measures, claiming that he no longer has significant business interests in Belarus and that his relationship with President Lukashenko is not as close as the Council suggests.
* The court then assesses the Council’s claims and Mr. Gutseriev’s counter-arguments, focusing on whether the Council made errors in its assessment of the facts.
* The court concludes that the Council did make errors of assessment and annuls the contested acts insofar as they concern Mr. Gutseriev.
* Finally, the court addresses the issue of costs, ordering the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The key provision is the court’s finding that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts. The court found that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Gutseriev continued to have significant business interests in Belarus or a close relationship with President Lukashenko at the time the restrictive measures were extended. The court emphasized that the Council must conduct an updated assessment of the situation when extending restrictive measures, taking into account any changes in circumstances.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspect of this judgment is its emphasis on the need for the Council to have a solid factual basis for imposing and extending restrictive measures. The Council cannot rely on outdated information or speculation. It must conduct an updated assessment of the situation and provide specific, precise, and consistent evidence to support its claims. This judgment reinforces the importance of due process and the right to judicial review in the context of EU sanctions.
**** This case is related to the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, and the restrictive measures are designed to put pressure on the Belarusian regime.
Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre) du 22 octobre 2025.#Danger Group Co. Ltd contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative Danger – Marque nationale figurative antérieure Danger – Absence de consentement du titulaire de la marque antérieure à l’enregistrement de la marque – Article 60, paragraphe 3, du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-482/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over a European Union trademark. The court dismisses the action brought by Danger Group Co. Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
The case revolves around the EU figurative trademark “Danger” obtained by Danger Equipment Co. Ltd, later transferred to Danger Group Co. Ltd. Carlos Heredia Casanella, the intervener, sought to annul this trademark based on his earlier Spanish figurative mark “Danger” for identical goods. The EUIPO’s Cancellation Division upheld the intervener’s request, and the Board of Appeal rejected Danger Group’s appeal. The General Court confirms the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that there was no explicit consent from the intervener regarding the registration of the EU trademark, as required by Article 60(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.
The key provision in this case is Article 60(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, which states that an EU trademark cannot be declared invalid if the holder of an earlier right expressly consented to the registration of the EU trademark before the nullity claim was filed. The court emphasizes that this consent must be explicit and cannot be merely inferred from the conduct of the prior trademark holder. The court found that Danger Group Co. Ltd did not provide any evidence of explicit consent from the intervener, Carlos Heredia Casanella, for the registration of the contested trademark.
Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community (2025-2029)
Here’s a breakdown of the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community (2025-2029).
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This Protocol sets out the specific rules and conditions for EU vessels to fish in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe. It details the fishing opportunities available, the financial contribution from the EU, and how that money will support the development of the fisheries sector in São Tomé and Príncipe. The agreement emphasizes sustainable fishing practices and cooperation between the EU and São Tomé and Príncipe.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Definitions (Article 1):** Clarifies the meaning of key terms used within the Protocol, ensuring consistent interpretation.
* **Objectives and Principles (Articles 2-4):** Defines the purpose of the Protocol as implementing the broader Fisheries Partnership Agreement. It emphasizes non-discrimination, sustainable development, and adherence to international labor standards for fishers.
* **Fishing Opportunities and Financial Contribution (Articles 5-6):** Specifies the number of EU vessels allowed to fish (tuna seiners and surface longliners) and the financial contribution from the EU (EUR 3,300,000 for the four-year period). This contribution includes payment for access to the fishing zone and specific support for São Tomé and Príncipe’s fisheries policy.
* **Sectoral Support (Article 7):** Details how the EU’s financial support will be used to improve fisheries management, scientific assessment of resources, and the value chain for fishery products in São Tomé and Príncipe.
* **Scientific and Technical Cooperation (Article 8):** Promotes collaboration on sustainable fishing practices, including building São Tomé and Príncipe’s scientific capabilities.
* **Review and New Opportunities (Articles 9-10):** Establishes a mechanism for adjusting fishing opportunities based on scientific advice and allows for the exploration of new fishing opportunities.
* **Landing Incentives and Cooperation (Article 11):** Encourages EU vessels to land catches in São Tomé and Príncipe ports and promotes broader economic cooperation in the fisheries sector and blue economy.
* **Suspension and Termination (Articles 12-13):** Outlines the conditions under which the Protocol can be suspended or terminated, such as unusual circumstances, changes in fisheries policy, or non-payment of financial contributions.
* **Electronic Exchange of Information (Article 14):** Mandates the use of IT systems for exchanging information related to vessel authorizations, activities, and catches.
* **Data Protection (Article 15):** Ensures that data exchanged under the agreement is used solely for implementation purposes and that commercially sensitive and personal data are treated as confidential.
* **Joint Committee (Article 16):** Defines the role of the Joint Committee in adopting amendments to the Protocol.
* **Duration and Authentic Texts (Articles 17-21):** Specifies the duration of the Protocol (four years) and confirms the authenticity of the texts in various languages.
* **Annex:** Provides detailed conditions governing fishing activities by EU vessels, including:
* General provisions
* Fishing authorizations procedures and fees
* Catch monitoring and reporting requirements (electronic fishing logbooks)
* Monitoring, control, and surveillance measures
* Employment of fishers from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries on board EU vessels
* Observer program
* Handling of infringements
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Fishing Authorizations:** EU vessel operators need to follow the procedures outlined in the Annex to obtain fishing authorizations, including submitting required documents and paying the necessary fees.
* **Catch Reporting:** Accurate and timely reporting of catches is crucial. Vessels must use electronic fishing logbooks and comply with the specified data transmission requirements.
* **Monitoring and Control:** EU vessels must comply with inspection procedures and vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements to ensure compliance with the Protocol.
* **Employment of ACP Fishers:** Operators are obligated to employ a minimum number of fishers from São Tomé and Príncipe, adhering to fair working conditions and remuneration standards.
* **Data Protection:** All parties must handle personal data in accordance with the data protection provisions outlined in the Protocol and its Annex.
* **Sectoral support:** The São Tomé and Príncipe authorities should provide the Union with the references of the accounts for payments.
* **Working languages:** The Parties agree that, as far as possible, the working languages used in meetings aimed at implementing this Protocol shall be Portuguese and French.
* **Working conditions:** The conditions under which the ACP fishers are taken on shall comply with the legislation of the flag State transposing Directive (EU) 2017/159, including as regards hours of work and rest, rights of repatriation and occupational safety and health.
* **Working conditions:** The conditions under which the ACP fishers are taken on shall comply with the legislation of the flag State transposing Directive (EU) 2017/159, including as regards hours of work and rest, rights of repatriation and occupational safety and health.
* **Remuneration of fishers:** ACP fishers must be paid a guaranteed monthly or regular remuneration, preferably by bank transfer, irrespective of the actual amount of fish caught and/or sold.
