Review of the EU legislation for 30/10/2025

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2172: ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ Geographical Indication

This regulation protects the Geographical Indication (GI) ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ within the EU. This means that only olive oil produced in the specified region of Albania, meeting defined specifications, can be marketed under that name within the European Union. This measure ensures fair competition, protects consumers from misleading products, and preserves the reputation of the olive oil.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183: Renewal of Authorization for L-valine

This regulation renews the authorization of L-valine, produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058, as a feed additive for all animal species. The regulation specifies the composition of the additive (at least 98% L-valine), the directions for use, storage conditions, heat treatment stability, and labeling requirements, including the need for rumen protection for ruminants and a warning about amino acid imbalances. The authorization is valid until November 19, 2035.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173: Amendment to Poultry Tariff Rate Quotas

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, allowing operators to use supply contracts instead of certificates of origin when applying for import licenses for poultry tariff rate quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420. The supply contract must confirm the availability of the poultry supplies within the Union during the quota period. Digital certificates of origin no longer need to include the import license serial number. Licenses issued before the new rules apply still require certificates of origin at customs.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175: Renewal of Authorization for *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528

This regulation renews the authorization for the use of *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528 as a feed additive for all animal species. Feed business operators must implement operational procedures and organizational measures to mitigate potential risks to users of the additive and premixtures. Personal protective equipment for skin and breathing is required if risks cannot be eliminated otherwise.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171: Renewal of Authorization for Calcium D-Pantothenate and D-Panthenol

This regulation renews the authorization for calcium D-pantothenate and D-panthenol (vitamin B5) as feed additives for all animal species. It allows labeling these additives as ‘vitamin B5’ in addition to their chemical names. Feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks. For D-Panthenol, specific protective equipment for skin, eyes, and breathing is required.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195: Cancellation of PDO ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’

This regulation cancels the registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’. This means the name can no longer be used with the same legal protections it previously held.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2194: Standardized Application Template for Strategic Projects

This regulation establishes a standardized application template for project promoters seeking recognition of critical raw material projects as Strategic Projects. The template dictates the structure and detail required, covering project information, security of supply, technical feasibility, sustainability, and cross-border benefits. Project promoters must provide accurate and comprehensive information.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2180: Harmonized Requirements for Used Cooking Oil Imports

This regulation introduces harmonized requirements for the import of used cooking oil into the EU. Imported used cooking oil must originate from approved establishments in third countries, be transported and monitored as per Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1666, be filtered to remove non-oil elements, and accompanied by a declaration by the importer at the border control post. These measures ensure public and animal health.

General Court Judgment – FU v. European Parliament

The General Court dismissed FU’s action against the European Parliament’s rejection of their accident declaration as untimely. The court clarified the interpretation of “legitimate reason” for exceeding the ten-day declaration deadline, emphasizing it must be an exceptional situation preventing timely submission. The court confirmed the Parliament adequately explained its decision and that rejected declarations do not affect standard healthcare coverage.

General Court Judgment – European Lotto and Betting ltd v EUIPO

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision that the trade mark “Powerball” was registered in bad faith. The judgment defines “bad faith” as dishonest intentions and practices contrary to ethical commercial behavior. The court highlighted the importance of an overall assessment of all relevant factors, including the applicant’s knowledge and intentions, when determining bad faith.

General Court Judgment – KF v. European Investment Bank (EIB)

The General Court annulled the EIB’s decision refusing to recognize KF’s invalidity and ordered the EIB to pay EUR 20,000 for non-material damage. The court found that the EIB’s decision was insufficiently reasoned and violated the transparency requirement of the settlement agreement. The court emphasized the importance of providing clear justifications for decisions affecting employees’ rights and the need for open communication between parties.

General Court Judgment – Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v EUIPO

The General Court dismissed Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd’s action against the EUIPO regarding the invalidity of an EU design representing a part of a warning light. The court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision that the contested design has individual character. The judgment clarified the criteria for assessing individual character and the admissibility of new evidence during appeal proceedings.

General Court Judgment – UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV v European Commission

The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision regarding the non-renewal of the approval of mancozeb in plant protection products. The court found a manifest error in relying on a non-binding opinion to classify mancozeb as toxic for reproduction category 1B without sufficient justification. This highlights the importance of the Commission providing a well-reasoned justification when using non-binding opinions in regulatory decisions.

General Court Judgment – Access to Documents Related to the Pact on Migration and Asylum

The General Court partially annulled a Council decision refusing access to documents related to the Pact on Migration and Asylum. The court found that the Council did not adequately justify its refusal based on the exception for protecting the decision-making process. The court emphasized the need for a more detailed explanation of the content of the documents and the specific context of the legislative proposals.

General Court Judgment – Devin EAD v EUIPO

The General Court dismissed Devin EAD’s action, upholding EUIPO’s decision to declare the DEVIN mark invalid for most goods in Class 32. The court confirmed that a trademark can be invalidated if it is descriptive of the goods or services. However, even if a mark is initially descriptive, it can still be validly registered if it has acquired distinctive character through use, which Devin EAD could demonstrate for “mineral water” and “seltzer mineral water.”

General Court Judgment – Advanced Sanitairy Technologies v EUIPO (ITRON)

The General Court annulled the EUIPO’s decision that dismissed Itron, Inc.’s opposition, which emphasizes that assessing the likelihood of a link between trade marks requires a global assessment, considering all relevant factors. It clarifies that dissimilarity of goods and services alone is not sufficient to rule out a link, and that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must also be considered.

General Court Judgment – UniSystems v ESMA

The General Court dismissed UniSystems’ action against ESMA, which contested ESMA’s decision to award the contract to another consortium, arguing that their tender was abnormally low and that ESMA had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision. It also emphasizes the contracting authority’s obligation to provide adequate reasons to unsuccessful tenderers, especially when they question the assessment of the successful tender. The judgment also clarifies the temporal application of laws in public procurement, distinguishing between procedural rules and substantive rules applicable during contract performance

General Court Judgment – Arina Evgheni Corşicova v Council

The Court rejected all of Corşicova’s claims and dismissed the appeal. The judgement clarifies the standard of proof required for maintaining individuals on sanctions lists, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis and a concrete link between the individual and the destabilizing activities

General Court Judgment – Lara Comi v European Parliament

The Court clarified the extent to which MEPs are responsible for ensuring the proper use of funds allocated for their parliamentary activities, particularly concerning the actions of third-party service providers and for the appling of the statute of limitations to the recovery of unduly paid funds, clarifying when the Parliament is considered to have been in a position to assert its claim. Ultimately, the Court partially annuls the Parliament’s decision, ordering the reimbursement of sums related to certain contracts while upholding the decision concerning others.

General Court Judgment – Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v EUIPO

The General Court rejected all three pleas and dismissed the action, ordering the applicant to pay the costs. This highlights the criteria for assessing individual character, by considering the informed user is not an expert but is particularly observant and knowledgeable about the sector.

General Court Judgment – Homestar sp. z o.o. v General Sanitary, SLU

The most important aspect of this judgment is its application of the likelihood of confusion test in the context of similar trade marks covering related goods and services. The judgment also confirms that a high level of attention on the part of the relevant public does not automatically rule out a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Convention on a common transit procedure – Montenegro Accession

The inclusion of Montenegro in the list of countries in the guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6) means that the common transit procedure will now apply to goods moving to, from, or through Montenegro.

Convention on a common transit procedure – Republic of Moldova Accession

The inclusion of the Republic of Moldova in the list of countries in the guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6) means that the common transit procedure will now apply to goods moving to, from, or through the Republic of Moldova.

Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on cooperation with and through the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL) and the Federal Police of Brazil

This agreement establishes a framework for enhanced cooperation between the EU (specifically Europol) and Brazil’s law enforcement authorities, primarily the Federal Police. Data Protection Principles Articles 4, 5, 6 are considered very important.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1726 of 27 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards the correction of the territorial scope of provisions concerning short-necked clam and red seabream

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2192 of 6 August 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards specific technical measures for red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in ICES subareas 6 to 8

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1411 of 16 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the amount of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) travel authorisation fee

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1535 of 29 July 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to an exclusion from the application of that Regulation for certain products with digital elements falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1455 of 23 July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 44/2014 as regards laying down technical requirements and testing procedures regarding the protection of L-category vehicles against cyberattacks

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2193 of 8 August 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the prolongation of technical measures for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea and the West of Scotland

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1449 of 18 July 2025 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning specific hygiene rules for emergency slaughter of domestic ungulates, for tuna frozen in brine and for highly refined products

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2191 of 16 July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/118 as regards conservation measures in the Dogger Bank and in some areas in the Kattegat

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2200 of 21 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1186 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation of the biocidal product family L+R Propanol PT1 Family

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid, sodium propionate and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1222/2013 and (EU) No 305/2014

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2176 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of the preparations of Pediococcus acidilactici NCIMB 30005, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 as feed additives for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 849/2014

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2172 of 29 October 2025 granting protection in the Union to the Geographical Indication Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan registered in the International Register of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications of the Geneva Act

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2172 grants protection within the European Union to the Geographical Indication (GI) ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan,’ which is registered in the International Register of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications under the Geneva Act. This means that the name ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ can only be used in the EU for olive oil originating from the specified geographical area in Albania, ensuring its unique characteristics and reputation are safeguarded. The regulation acknowledges that the necessary conditions for protection have been met, and no oppositions were received following the publication of the GI in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally grants protection to the ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ Geographical Indication within the EU, specifying that it identifies a product of the “Olive oil” type. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. There are no direct changes to previous versions, as this is an implementing regulation specifically addressing the protection of this particular GI. However, it operates within the framework established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1753 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which govern the protection of geographical indications.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly grants protection to the Geographical Indication ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ within the EU. This protection means that only olive oil produced in the specified region of Albania, meeting the defined specifications, can be marketed under that name within the European Union. This protection helps to ensure fair competition, protects consumers from misleading products, and preserves the reputation of the ‘Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan’ olive oil.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of L-valine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058 as a feed additive for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183 concerns the renewal of the authorization of L-valine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058 as a feed additive for all animal species. It classifies L-valine as a ‘nutritional additive’ within the functional group of ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’. The regulation repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014, which previously authorized the same additive.

The regulation consists of four articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorization of L-valine, subject to the conditions laid down in the annex. Article 2 repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued use of products produced and labelled under the old rules for a specified period. Article 4 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, its composition, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions, including the end of the authorization period.

The main provisions of this act are those specified in the Annex.
1. The additive composition: L-valine with a minimum content of 98 % (on a dry matter basis).
2. The directions for use of the additive and premixtures, the storage conditions and the stability to heat treatment shall be indicated.
3. Feed business operators shall ensure that L-valine is rumen protected, when fed to ruminants.
4. The moisture content shall be indicated on the label of the additive.
5. The label of the additive and premixtures shall indicate the following: ‘The supplementation with L-valine shall take into account all essential and conditionally essential amino acids in order to avoid imbalances.’
6. End of period of authorisation – 19 November 2035.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173 of 29 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 as regards proof of origin for certain tariff rate quotas in the poultry sector and as regards the information to be mentioned on digital certificates of origin

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, focusing on the proof of origin requirements for specific tariff rate quotas in the poultry sector (09.4410 and 09.4420). The key change allows operators to use supply contracts instead of certificates of origin when applying for import licenses for these quotas. Additionally, it removes the requirement for digital certificates of origin to include the serial number of the import license.

The Regulation consists of three articles. Article 1 outlines the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, specifically modifying Annex XII regarding proof of origin for tariff quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420, and deleting point 4(d)(i) in Annex XVII concerning digital certificates of origin. Article 2 establishes transitional rules, stating that licenses issued before the application of these amendments must still be accompanied by certificates of origin for the release of goods into free circulation. Article 3 details the entry into force and application, specifying that the regulation takes effect seven days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and applies from the first license application period following a 90-day period after publication.

The most important provisions for operators are those related to the proof of origin. Instead of providing a certificate of origin, operators can now submit a supply contract when applying for import licenses for tariff rate quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420. This supply contract must confirm that the requested poultry supplies are available for delivery within the Union during the quota period and for the quantity requested. However, it’s crucial to note the transitional rule: licenses issued before the new rules apply still require certificates of origin at customs.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CECT 4528 as a feed additive for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 399/2014

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175 concerns the renewal of the authorization for the use of *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528 as a feed additive for all animal species. It confirms the safety and efficacy of the additive, re-authorizing it for another 10-year period. The regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 399/2014, which initially authorized the additive.

The regulation consists of 4 articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorization of the preparation under the conditions specified in the annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 399/2014. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued use and marketing of products produced and labelled before November 19, 2026, in accordance with the rules applicable before November 19, 2025, until stocks are exhausted. Article 4 states that the regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the identification number, composition, analytical method, and other provisions for the feed additive.

The most important provisions of this act are related to the conditions of use of the additive. The regulation specifies that feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks to users of the additive and premixtures. It also states that personal skin and breathing protective equipment must be used if those risks cannot be eliminated.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of calcium D-pantothenate (vitamin B5) and D-panthenol (vitamin B5) as feed additives for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171 concerns the renewal of the authorisation of calcium D-pantothenate (vitamin B5) and D-panthenol (vitamin B5) as feed additives for all animal species. It also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014 which initially authorised these additives. The regulation confirms the safety and efficacy of these additives based on the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) opinions. It also introduces specific labelling requirements and protective measures for the handling of these additives.

The regulation consists of 4 articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorisation of calcium D-pantothenate and D-panthenol as feed additives, specifying that they belong to the category of nutritional additives and the functional group of vitamins, pro-vitamins, and chemically well-defined substances having similar effects. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014. Article 3 outlines transitional measures, allowing the continued use and marketing of products produced and labelled under the previous regulation for a specified period. Article 4 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex specifies the identification number of the additive, composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method, animal species, maximum age, minimum and maximum content and other provisions.

The main provisions of the act are the renewed authorisation of calcium D-pantothenate and D-panthenol as feed additives, the introduction of the possibility to label these additives as ‘vitamin B5’ in addition to their chemical names, and the requirement for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks resulting from the use of these additives. For D-Panthenol, specific protective equipment (skin, eye and breathing) is required for users of the additive and premixtures. The transitional measures are also important, as they allow businesses time to adapt to the new labelling requirements.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195 of 29 October 2025 cancelling the registration of the protected designation of origin Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (PDO)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195 cancels the registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’. The cancellation was requested by Spain and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Since no opposition was received, the Commission has adopted this regulation to remove the name from the Union register of geographical indications.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasons for the cancellation, followed by two articles. Article 1 stipulates the cancellation of the registration of the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO). Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but rather implements the cancellation of an existing PDO.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly cancels the protected designation of origin ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’. This means that the name can no longer be used with the same protections and recognition it previously held under EU law.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2194 of 28 October 2025 establishing a single template to be used by project promoters for the application for recognition of a critical raw material project as a Strategic Project in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2194 establishes a standardized application template for project promoters seeking recognition of their critical raw material projects as Strategic Projects, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1252. The regulation aims to streamline the application process by providing a single, comprehensive template that ensures all necessary information is submitted to the Commission for assessment. This will facilitate the evaluation of projects based on the criteria outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, ultimately supporting the EU’s goals for a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials. The template covers various aspects of the project, including its contribution to the Union’s security of supply, technical feasibility, sustainability, and cross-border benefits.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 mandates the use of the single template provided in the Annex for all applications seeking recognition as a Strategic Project under Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and application date of the regulation. The Annex contains the single template itself, structured into three main sections: Basic project information, Information needed for assessing if the criteria listed in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 are met, and Supporting documents, additional information and attestation. This template requires detailed information on the project’s strategic raw materials, the project promoter, business plan, security of supply and trade, technical feasibility, sustainability (environmental, social, and governance aspects), and cross-border benefits.

The most important provision for project promoters is the single template provided in the Annex. It dictates the structure and level of detail required for the application. Project promoters need to carefully complete each section, providing accurate and comprehensive information to demonstrate that their project meets the criteria for recognition as a Strategic Project. Special attention should be paid to providing supporting documents and addressing all aspects of sustainability, including environmental, social, and governance considerations.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2181 of 29 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards requirements for the import of used cooking oil

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to introduce harmonized requirements for the import of used cooking oil into the European Union. It aims to facilitate international trade while preventing and minimizing risks to public and animal health. The regulation ensures that imported used cooking oil is properly handled and used for appropriate purposes, such as renewable fuels, biodiesel, or oleochemical products.

The regulation modifies Annexes I, XIV, and XV of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. It adds a definition of “used cooking oil” to Annex I, specifying it as an oil fraction of catering waste Category 3 material containing or consisting of materials of animal origin. Annex XIV is amended to include specific import conditions for used cooking oil, including requirements for approved establishments in third countries, transport and monitoring in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1666, pre-shipment filtration, and a declaration by the importer. A new Chapter 22 is added to Annex XV, providing a model declaration for importers of used cooking oil.

The most important provisions of this regulation include the requirement for used cooking oil to originate from approved or registered establishments in third countries, the mandatory transport and monitoring of consignments in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1666 (unless moved by a closed conveyer system), the filtration requirements to remove non-oil elements, and the need for a declaration by the importer at the time of official controls at the border control post. These measures ensure that imported used cooking oil meets specific standards to prevent risks to public and animal health and is used for appropriate purposes within the EU.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 29 octobre 2025.#FU contre Parlement européen.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Sécurité sociale – Article 73 du statut – Accident – Rejet de la déclaration d’accident – Déclaration tardive – Dépassement du délai de dix jours ouvrables à partir de la survenance de l’accident – Notion de “motif légitime”.#Affaire T-530/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between FU, a staff member of the European Parliament, and the Parliament itself, concerning the rejection of FU’s accident declaration. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission participated in the proceedings as interveners. The court dismisses FU’s action, upholding the Parliament’s decision to reject the accident declaration as untimely.

The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** It outlines the purpose of the action, which is to annul the Parliament’s decision rejecting FU’s accident declaration due to its lateness.
* **Background:** It details the sequence of events leading to the dispute, including the accident, medical consultations, and the eventual declaration of the accident.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments presented by FU (the applicant) and the Parliament (the defendant), as well as the positions of the Council and the Commission as interveners.
* **Legal Analysis:** This section forms the core of the judgment, where the court examines the admissibility of the action and the merits of FU’s claims. It addresses issues such as the clarity of the application, compliance with procedural rules, the interpretation of the Staff Regulations, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
* **Decision:** The court dismisses the action and rules on the allocation of costs.

The key provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable as this is a judgment, not a legislative act.

The most important provisions for its use are:

* **Article 15(2) of the Common Rules on Insurance against Accidents and Occupational Diseases:** This article sets a deadline of ten working days for declaring an accident, which is central to the dispute. The court interprets the terms “force majeure” and “legitimate reason” for exceeding this deadline.
* **The Court’s Interpretation of “Legitimate Reason”:** The court clarifies that a “legitimate reason” for late declaration must be an exceptional situation beyond the control of the insured, preventing them from submitting the declaration within the standard timeframe.
* **The Obligation of Motivation:** The court confirms that the Parliament provided a sufficient explanation for rejecting the accident declaration, satisfying the requirement to state reasons for its decisions.
* **The Relationship between Accident Declaration and Healthcare Coverage:** The court clarifies that even if an accident declaration is rejected for being late, the insured person remains eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses under the standard health insurance scheme.
* **The Requirement for a Medical Certificate:** The court clarifies that while a medical certificate is required with the accident declaration, it does not need to provide a complete diagnosis at the time of the declaration.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2025.European Lotto and Betting ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Powerball – Absolute ground for invalidity – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Bad faith.Case T-375/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around the word mark “Powerball” and whether its registration was done in bad faith. The court ultimately decided that the trade mark was indeed registered in bad faith and dismissed the action brought by European Lotto and Betting ltd.

The structure of the judgment includes:

* **Background:** Outlines the initial application for the declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark “Powerball” filed by Multi-State Lottery Association against European Lotto and Betting ltd.
* **The contested services:** Services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 of the Nice Agreement.
* **The plea:** The initial decision of the Cancellation Division to uphold the application, the subsequent appeal, and the Board of Appeal’s decision to partially uphold the appeal, finding bad faith except for ‘science services’ in Class 42.
* **Forms of order sought:** Details the requests from the applicant (European Lotto and Betting ltd.), EUIPO, and the intervener (Multi-State Lottery Association).
* **Law:** Specifies the applicable regulations, primarily Regulation No 207/2009 and Regulation 2017/1001, clarifying which provisions apply to the case.
* **Substance:** This section contains the court’s analysis and reasoning. It defines “bad faith” in the context of EU trade mark law, emphasizing that it involves a dishonest intention that goes against ethical commercial practices. The court assesses the circumstances surrounding the trade mark application, including the applicant’s knowledge of the intervener’s existing “Powerball” lottery, the use of the mark to refer to the intervener’s services, and the timing of the application in relation to revocation requests for the intervener’s earlier marks.
* **Costs:** Determines that the unsuccessful party, European Lotto and Betting ltd., must pay the costs.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:

* **Definition of Bad Faith:** The judgment provides an interpretation of “bad faith” in the context of trade mark law, emphasizing dishonest intentions and practices contrary to ethical commercial behavior.
* **Overall Assessment:** The judgment underscores the importance of an overall assessment of all relevant factors when determining bad faith, including the applicant’s knowledge, intentions, and the degree of legal protection involved.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment clarifies that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming bad faith to demonstrate the circumstances supporting such a finding.
* **Objective Circumstances:** The judgment highlights that objective circumstances can rebut the presumption of good faith, requiring the trade mark proprietor to provide plausible explanations for the application.
* **Function of a Trade Mark:** The judgment emphasizes that trade mark registration should aim to protect the essential function of indicating the commercial origin of goods or services, rather than undermining competition or obtaining exclusive rights for other purposes.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 29 octobre 2025.#KF contre Banque européenne d’investissement.#* Langue de procédure : le français. Fonction publique – Personnel de la BEI – Sécurité sociale – Comité d’invalidité – Refus de reconnaître l’invalidité – Exécution des termes d’un accord de règlement amiable – Obligation de motivation – Responsabilité».#Affaire T-330/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between KF, a former employee of the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the EIB concerning the EIB’s refusal to recognize KF’s invalidity and the execution of a settlement agreement. The court annuls the EIB’s decision and orders the EIB to pay KF EUR 20,000 in compensation for non-material damage. The court found that the EIB’s decision was insufficiently reasoned and violated the settlement agreement.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background of the Dispute:** This section outlines the facts leading to the legal action, including KF’s employment history with the EIB, her sick leave due to a burn-out, the EIB’s decision not to renew her contract, and the EIB’s initial decision not to consider her as invalid. It also mentions previous legal proceedings and the settlement agreement reached between the parties.
2. **Conclusions of the Parties:** This section summarizes the claims made by KF and the EIB. KF sought the annulment of the EIB’s decision, compensation for non-material damage, and the coverage of her legal costs. The EIB requested the rejection of KF’s claims as inadmissible or unfounded and asked for KF to cover the legal costs.
3. **Law:** This section contains the court’s legal analysis and reasoning. It addresses the admissibility of the action and the substantive arguments raised by KF.
* **Admissibility:** The EIB raised objections to the admissibility of KF’s claims, which the court rejected. The court found that KF’s action was admissible because it concerned a “subsequent difficulty” in the execution of the settlement agreement, the contested decision was not a purely confirmatory act, and KF had a legitimate interest in bringing the action.
* **Substantive Arguments:** KF raised two main arguments: violation of the settlement agreement and violation of the obligation to state reasons. The court upheld both arguments.
* **Violation of the Obligation to State Reasons:** The court found that the EIB’s decision was insufficiently reasoned because the medical reports on which it relied did not adequately explain why KF was deemed capable of performing another job of equivalent level at the EIB, given her medical condition.
* **Violation of the Settlement Agreement:** The court found that the EIB had misinterpreted the request for clarification sent to the invalidity committee and had violated the transparency requirement of the settlement agreement by contacting two members of the committee without informing KF.
4. **Conclusions on the Claim for Damages:** The court considered KF’s claim for compensation for non-material damage. It acknowledged that the EIB’s unlawful conduct had caused KF to experience a prolonged period of uncertainty, which constituted non-material damage. The court ordered the EIB to pay KF EUR 20,000 in compensation.
5. **Costs:** The court ordered the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by KF.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:

* The court’s finding that the EIB’s decision was insufficiently reasoned, as it highlights the importance of providing clear and comprehensive justifications for decisions affecting employees’ rights.
* The court’s interpretation of the transparency requirement in the settlement agreement, which emphasizes the need for open and balanced communication between the parties.
* The court’s recognition of the non-material damage suffered by KF due to the EIB’s unlawful conduct, as it underscores the importance of considering the emotional and psychological impact of legal disputes on individuals.
* The court’s emphasis on the heightened responsibility of the Union as an employer to repair damages caused to its personnel by any illegality committed in its capacity as an employer.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU design – Invalidity proceedings – EU design representing warning lights – Ground for invalidity – Non-compliance with requirements for protection – Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 – No individual character – Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Proof of disclosure of the earlier design – Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Indication and reproduction of the earlier designs – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version.Case T-554/24.

This judgment concerns an action brought by Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd against a decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the invalidity of a registered EU design owned by Electronic Controls Co., which represents warning lights. The General Court dismisses the action, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision that the contested design has individual character and does not infringe relevant articles of Regulation No 6/2002. The court addresses claims of infringement related to the obligation to state reasons, proof of disclosure of earlier designs, and the assessment of individual character.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins with the background to the dispute, detailing the application for a declaration of invalidity, the grounds for the application, and the decisions of the Invalidity Division and the Board of Appeal. It then outlines the forms of order sought by the parties. The main body of the judgment addresses three pleas in law raised by the applicant: (1) infringement of Article 62 and Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, concerning the rejection of new evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal; (2) infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, regarding the assessment of the disclosure of earlier designs; and (3) infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, concerning the assessment of individual character. The court systematically rejects each of these pleas.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the admissibility of new evidence during appeal proceedings (Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002) and the criteria for assessing the individual character of a design (Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002). The judgment clarifies that new earlier designs cannot be introduced during appeal proceedings to broaden the scope of the invalidity claim. It also provides guidance on defining the “informed user” and comparing overall impressions of designs, emphasizing that the assessment must be synthetic and consider the designer’s degree of freedom.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2025.UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV v European Commission.Plant protection products – Active substance mancozeb – Non-renewal of approval – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 – Procedure for assessing the application for renewal of approval of an active substance – Manifest error of assessment – Procedure for harmonised classification and labelling – Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.Case T-742/20 RENV.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding the non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb in plant protection products. The case was brought by UPL Europe Ltd and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV against the European Commission. The court partially annuls the Commission’s decision, finding a manifest error of assessment in relying on a non-binding opinion that mancozeb should be classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B without sufficient justification.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of mancozeb’s approval and subsequent attempts to renew it, referencing various EU regulations and directives.
* **Subject Matter of the Action:** It clarifies that the court is only ruling on the fourth plea raised by the applicants, concerning a manifest error of assessment by the Commission.
* **Fourth Plea in Law: Manifest Error of Assessment:** This section forms the core of the judgment, addressing the applicants’ arguments that the Commission erred in relying on the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) opinion.
* **Preliminary Observations:** The court identifies three specific concerns raised by EFSA and adopted by the Commission as reasons for non-renewal.
* **Analysis of Specific Concerns:** The court analyzes each concern, finding a manifest error in the first concern (classification as toxic for reproduction category 1B) but rejecting the arguments related to the second (endocrine disruptor) and third (non-dietary exposure) concerns.
* **Costs:** The judgment outlines the allocation of costs between the parties.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* The court finds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relying on the RAC opinion, which proposed classifying mancozeb as toxic for reproduction category 1B, without providing sufficient justification or supporting evidence.
* The court rejects the applicants’ arguments regarding the second and third specific concerns raised by EFSA, deeming them inadmissible or unfounded.
* The action is ultimately dismissed, but the partial annulment regarding the first specific concern is a significant point.

**Most Important Provisions:**

* The court’s finding of a manifest error of assessment in relying on the RAC opinion without sufficient justification is crucial. This highlights the importance of the Commission providing a well-reasoned justification when using non-binding opinions in regulatory decisions.
* The judgment emphasizes that the legality of an EU measure must be assessed based on the facts and the law at the time of its adoption.
* The court’s analysis of the admissibility of arguments and its application of established case law are also important for understanding the scope and limitations of judicial review in this context.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Emilio De Capitani v Council of the European Union.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Working documents issued by the General Secretariat of the Council concerning two legislative proposals pending at the time of the request for access – Partial refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Action for annulment – No publication, in the Council’s register, of documents to which access was granted pursuant to a request – Absence of a challengeable act – Inadmissibility.Case T-590/23.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding access to documents related to the Pact on Migration and Asylum. The court partially annuls a Council decision refusing access to certain documents. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, specifically concerning exceptions for protecting the decision-making process.

The judgment is structured around the applicant’s challenge to the Council’s decision to deny access to two working documents (WK 1505/2023 and WK 1513/2023) related to legislative proposals on asylum and migration management and the Eurodac Regulation. The applicant also challenged the Council’s alleged practice of not publishing documents in its register that were disclosed following access requests. The court examines the admissibility of the claims and the legal basis for the Council’s refusal, considering arguments related to legislative transparency and the protection of the decision-making process.

The most important provision in this judgment is the court’s finding that the Council did not adequately justify its refusal to grant access to the documents at issue based on the exception for protecting the decision-making process. The court found the Council’s reasoning to be too general and abstract, failing to demonstrate how disclosure would specifically and actually undermine the decision-making process. The court emphasizes that the Council should have provided a more detailed explanation of the content of the documents and the specific context of the legislative proposals.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Devin EAD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark DEVIN – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Right to be heard following an annulment judgment of the General Court – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.Case T-351/24.

This judgment concerns an action brought by Devin EAD against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the EU word mark DEVIN. The case revolves around an application for a declaration of invalidity filed by the Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (HCCI), arguing that the DEVIN mark is descriptive and thus ineligible for registration. The General Court ultimately dismissed Devin EAD’s action, upholding EUIPO’s decision to declare the DEVIN mark invalid for most goods in Class 32, except for “mineral water” and “seltzer mineral water,” for which it had acquired distinctiveness through use.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background of the dispute, detailing the initial application for invalidity, the grounds for the application, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. It then outlines the previous legal proceedings, including judgments of the General Court and the Court of Justice, which led to the contested decision. The judgment then presents the forms of order sought by the parties, followed by an analysis of the admissibility of evidence presented for the first time before the Court. Finally, it addresses the substance of the action, considering the pleas raised by the applicant, including alleged infringements of various articles of Regulation No 207/2009 and Regulation 2017/1001, as well as principles of EU law.

The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the descriptive character of a trademark and the acquisition of distinctive character through use. The court confirms that a trademark can be invalidated if it is descriptive of the goods or services for which it is registered. However, even if a mark is initially descriptive, it can still be validly registered if it has acquired distinctive character through use. The burden of proof for demonstrating that a mark has acquired distinctive character through use lies with the trademark owner. The judgment also clarifies the scope of the General Court’s review of EUIPO decisions and the admissibility of new evidence before the Court.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Itron, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark ITRON – Earlier EU word marks ITRON – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Distance between the goods and services in question.Case T-565/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Advanced Sanitairy Technologies to register the word mark “ITRON” and an opposition to that registration by Itron, Inc., based on their existing EU trade marks also named “ITRON”. The court annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office), which had previously dismissed Itron, Inc.’s opposition.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the initial trade mark application, the opposition filed by Itron, Inc., and the goods and services covered by both marks.
* It then details the forms of order sought by both parties (Itron, Inc. seeking annulment of the EUIPO decision, and EUIPO seeking either annulment of the decision in part or dismissal of the action).
* The core of the judgment addresses the legal arguments, focusing on Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the protection of trade marks with a reputation. The court examines whether the Board of Appeal correctly assessed the likelihood of a link between the marks and whether the use of the applied-for mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark.
* The court finds that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment by focusing too heavily on the dissimilarity of the goods and services and by failing to adequately consider other relevant factors, such as the distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
* Finally, the court annuls the EUIPO’s decision and orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The core of the judgment concerns the interpretation and application of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The court emphasizes that assessing the likelihood of a link between trade marks requires a global assessment, considering all relevant factors. It clarifies that dissimilarity of goods and services alone is not sufficient to rule out a link, and that the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must also be considered.

**Most Important Provisions:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

* The reaffirmation that a global assessment is required when determining the likelihood of a link between trade marks under Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
* The clarification that dissimilarity of goods and services is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for concluding that no link exists.
* The emphasis on the need to consider the distinctiveness of the earlier mark when assessing the likelihood of a link.
* The judgment provides guidance to EUIPO and trade mark applicants on how to assess the likelihood of a link between marks in opposition proceedings.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2025.UniSystems Luxembourg Sàrl and Unisystems systimata pliroforikis monoprosopi anonymi emporiki etairia v European Securities and Markets Authority.Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of development, consultancy and support services in the field of information systems – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid – Abnormally low tender – Determination of the applicable substantive law – Applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law – Manifest error of assessment.Case T-750/22.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over a tendering procedure for the provision of IT services to several EU agencies. The court dismisses the action brought by UniSystems, a company that was ranked second in the tendering process, against the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). UniSystems contested ESMA’s decision to award the contract to another consortium, arguing that their tender was abnormally low and that ESMA had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including the call for tenders, the parties involved, and the tendering procedure.
2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the requests made by the applicants (UniSystems) and the defendant (ESMA). UniSystems sought annulment of ESMA’s decision and damages.
3. **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the court’s reasoning. It is divided into two main parts:

* **Application for annulment:** The court examines UniSystems’ arguments for annulling ESMA’s decision, focusing on alleged infringements of the Financial Regulation, the tender specifications, and principles of transparency and good administration. The court rejects these arguments.
* **Claim for damages:** The court dismisses UniSystems’ claim for damages, as it is based on the same alleged illegalities that were rejected in the annulment claim.
4. **Costs:** The court orders each party to bear its own costs due to the error of law made by ESMA.

The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the assessment of abnormally low tenders. The court clarifies the two-stage process for assessing abnormally low tenders: a prima facie assessment followed by a detailed analysis if suspicion arises. It also emphasizes the contracting authority’s obligation to provide adequate reasons to unsuccessful tenderers, especially when they question the assessment of the successful tender. The judgment also clarifies the temporal application of laws in public procurement, distinguishing between procedural rules and substantive rules applicable during contract performance. The court found that ESMA made an error of law by not considering a future increase in the minimum wage in Germany, which was already enacted at the time of the tendering procedure. However, the court concluded that this error did not invalidate ESMA’s decision because the impact on the overall tender was minimal.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 29 octobre 2025.#Arina Evgheni Corşicova contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises en raison des actions déstabilisant la Moldavie – Gel des fonds – Restriction en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques ou faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom de la requérante sur les listes – Atteinte au processus politique démocratique et déstabilisation de l’ordre constitutionnel – Diffusion de fausses déclarations et de désinformation – Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous a), i), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous a), i), de la décision (PESC) 2023/891 – Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous a), i), du règlement (UE) 2023/888 – Association à une personne inscrite sur les listes – Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous b), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la décision 2023/891 – Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous b), du règlement 2023/888 – Obligation de motivation – Exception d’illégalité – Erreurs d’appréciation – Liberté d’entreprise – Droit de propriété – Liberté d’association – Liberté d’expression – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-345/24.

This is an analysis of the *Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) 29 octobre 2025* (Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2025).

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This judgment concerns a legal challenge by Arina Evgheni Corşicova against the Council of the European Union’s decisions to maintain her name on the lists of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to actions destabilizing Moldova. The Court dismisses Corşicova’s appeal, upholding the Council’s decisions. The Court found that the Council provided sufficient evidence and did not commit errors in its assessment when maintaining Corşicova’s name on the sanctions list.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures against individuals destabilizing Moldova, the initial listing of Corşicova, and the subsequent decisions to maintain her on the list.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments presented by Corşicova and the Council. Corşicova seeks annulment of the Council’s decisions and compensation for damages, while the Council requests the dismissal of the appeal.
* **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court examines Corşicova’s claims, which include:

* Illegality of the underlying decisions and regulations establishing the sanctions regime.
* Violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to provide adequate reasoning.
* Errors in assessment by the Council.
* Violation of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights.
* **Decision:** The Court rejects all of Corşicova’s claims and dismisses the appeal.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The judgment primarily deals with the application of existing restrictive measures, rather than introducing new legislation. It interprets and applies Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/888, as amended by subsequent acts. The key provisions at stake are those that allow the EU to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for actions that undermine the sovereignty, independence, or stability of Moldova, or who are associated with such individuals.

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

The most important aspects of this judgment for future use are:

* **Standard of Proof:** The Court clarifies the standard of proof required for maintaining individuals on sanctions lists, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis and a concrete link between the individual and the destabilizing activities.
* **Reliance on Publicly Available Information:** The Court confirms that the Council can rely on publicly available information, such as press articles, in the absence of investigative powers in third countries.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The Court clarifies that restrictive measures do not violate freedom of expression when the measures are based on the person’s actions to undermine democracy.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment illustrates the scope of judicial review in cases involving EU sanctions, balancing the need to protect fundamental rights with the Council’s discretion in foreign policy matters.
* **Onus of Proof:** The judgement clarifies the onus of proof when a person claims that their situation has changed.

Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre) du 29 octobre 2025.#Lara Comi contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Réglementation concernant les frais et indemnités des députés au Parlement – Recouvrement d’indemnités versées au titre du remboursement des frais parlementaires – Répétition de l’indu – Enrichissement sans cause.#Affaire T-422/23.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between Lara Comi, a former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), and the European Parliament concerning the recovery of expenses paid to her from the Parliament’s budget line 400. The essence of the dispute revolves around the recovery of funds that were allegedly unduly paid to Ms. Comi following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into potential irregularities related to the use of funds allocated to the MEP’s parliamentary activities. The Court’s decision addresses the legality of the Parliament’s decision to recover these funds, considering arguments related to the responsibility for oversight, the statute of limitations, and the proportionality of the recovery.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including Ms. Comi’s tenure as an MEP and the OLAF investigation.
* It presents the arguments of both parties, with Ms. Comi seeking the annulment of the decision to recover funds and the Parliament defending its decision.
* The Court then assesses the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence and requests for measures of inquiry submitted by Ms. Comi, ultimately rejecting them.
* The judgment proceeds to examine the merits of Ms. Comi’s claims, structured around six pleas concerning the responsibility for oversight, the statute of limitations, her standing to be pursued for payment, the principle of proportionality, the lack of specification of violated rules, and the absence of irregularities.
* The Court rules on each plea, finding in favor of the Parliament on some points but also identifying errors in the Parliament’s approach, particularly regarding the nature of Ms. Comi’s responsibility for the actions of third-party service providers.
* Ultimately, the Court partially annuls the Parliament’s decision, ordering the reimbursement of sums related to certain contracts while upholding the decision concerning others.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:

* **Responsibility for Oversight**: The Court clarifies the extent to which MEPs are responsible for ensuring the proper use of funds allocated for their parliamentary activities, particularly concerning the actions of third-party service providers. It distinguishes between situations where MEPs knew or should have known about irregularities and those where they did not have such knowledge.
* **Statute of Limitations**: The judgment addresses the application of the statute of limitations to the recovery of unduly paid funds, clarifying when the Parliament is considered to have been in a position to assert its claim.
* **Principle of Proportionality**: The Court examines the application of the principle of proportionality in the context of recovering funds, considering the nature of the irregularities and the impact of the recovery on the individual.
* **Unjust Enrichment**: The judgment invokes the principle of unjust enrichment, preventing the Parliament from recovering funds for services that were actually provided, unless the MEP knew or should have known that the execution of the contract did not respect the regulatory framework.
* **Impact of OLAF Investigations**: The judgment recognizes the importance of OLAF investigations in uncovering irregularities but also emphasizes the need for the Parliament to demonstrate that MEPs had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the irregularities in question.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU design – Invalidity proceedings – EU design representing a part of a warning light – Ground for invalidity – Non-compliance with requirements for protection – Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 – No individual character – Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Proof of disclosure of the earlier design – Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Indication and reproduction of the earlier designs – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version.Case T-550/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for the annulment of a decision by the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) concerning the invalidity of an EU design. The case revolves around an EU design representing a part of a warning light and whether it meets the requirements for protection, specifically concerning its individual character compared to earlier designs.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd. (applicant) filed an action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which dismissed their appeal against the Invalidity Division’s decision. The Invalidity Division had rejected the applicant’s request to declare invalid EU design No. 8 005 813-0002, owned by Electronic Controls Co. (intervener). The applicant argued that the design lacked individual character due to earlier designs.
2. **Grounds for the Dispute:** The applicant’s request for a declaration of invalidity was based on Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, claiming the contested design lacked individual character (Article 6) compared to earlier designs (D1 and D2). The Invalidity Division rejected this, stating the designs produced a different overall impression. The Board of Appeal upheld this decision.
3. **Pleas in Law:** The applicant raised three pleas:
* Infringement of Article 62 and Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 (failure to admit new evidence).
* Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 (incorrect assessment of evidence of disclosure).
* Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 (incorrect assessment of individual character).
4. **Court’s Analysis and Decision:** The General Court analyzed each plea, addressing arguments related to the admissibility of evidence, the obligation to state reasons, and the assessment of individual character. The court ultimately rejected all three pleas and dismissed the action, ordering the applicant to pay the costs.

The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are:

* **Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002:** This article, in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822, is the basis for the invalidity claim. It states that an EU design can be declared invalid if it does not meet the requirements of Articles 4 to 9, which include novelty and individual character.
* **Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002:** This article defines individual character and how it should be assessed, considering the overall impression on an informed user and the designer’s degree of freedom.
* **Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002:** This article defines when a design is considered to have been made available to the public.
* **Article 62 and Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002:** These articles concern the decision-making process of the EUIPO, including the obligation to state reasons and the discretion to disregard facts or evidence not submitted in due time.

The most important provisions for its use are:

* **The criteria for assessing individual character (Article 6):** This includes defining the “informed user” and comparing the overall impression of the contested design with earlier designs. The judgment clarifies that the informed user is not an expert but is particularly observant and knowledgeable about the sector.
* **The rules on admissibility of evidence (Article 63(2) and related case law):** The judgment confirms that new earlier designs cannot be introduced after the initial application for a declaration of invalidity. Additional evidence is permissible only to support designs already relied upon.
* **The obligation to state reasons (Article 62):** The Board of Appeal must provide clear and unequivocal reasons for its decisions, enabling parties to understand the basis for the decision and allowing the EU Courts to exercise their power of review.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2025.Homestar sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark THERMATEC – Earlier EU figurative mark Termatek – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-611/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Homestar sp. z o.o. to register the figurative mark THERMATEC and an opposition by General Sanitary, SLU based on their earlier EU figurative mark Termatek. The court ultimately dismisses Homestar’s action, upholding the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the details of the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal.
* It then addresses the forms of order sought by the applicant (Homestar) and the EUIPO.
* The court then addresses its jurisdiction with regard to the second head of claim.
* The court then addresses the evidence submitted for the first time before the Court
* The main body of the judgment assesses the substance of the applicant’s plea, which alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation). This involves an examination of the relevant public, a comparison of the goods and services in question, a comparison of the signs at issue, and an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs.

**Key Provisions and Analysis:**

* **Likelihood of Confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001):** The core of the judgment centers on whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the THERMATEC mark applied for and the earlier Termatek mark. The court applies the standard test, considering the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the goods/services they cover, from the perspective of the relevant public.
* **Relevant Public:** The Board of Appeal considered that the relevant public displayed a higher than average level of attention.
* **Comparison of Goods and Services:** The court upholds the Board of Appeal’s finding that the goods and services covered by the respective marks are either identical or similar. The applicant disputed the similarity of “heat pumps” and “air-conditioning apparatus”, but the court rejected this argument.
* **Comparison of the Signs:** The court agrees with the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the signs have a high degree of visual similarity and are phonetically identical. The applicant’s arguments regarding significant visual and phonetic differences were deemed unsubstantiated.
* **Global Assessment:** The court conducts a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, taking into account all relevant factors. It acknowledges that the marks share elements with a low degree of distinctiveness but concludes that the striking similarities between the marks, combined with the identity or similarity of the goods and services, create a likelihood of confusion, even among a public with a higher level of attention.
* **New evidence:** The Court did not take into account the new evidence.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspect of this judgment is its application of the likelihood of confusion test in the context of similar trade marks covering related goods and services. The court’s analysis provides guidance on how to assess the similarity of goods and services, how to compare trade marks (visually, phonetically, and conceptually), and how to weigh the various factors in a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The judgment also confirms that a high level of attention on the part of the relevant public does not automatically rule out a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

Decision No 2/2025 of the EU-Common Transit Countries Joint Committee of 19 September 2025 as regards the amendments of Appendices III and IIIa to the Convention on a common transit procedure for the accession of Montenegro [2025/2201]

Here’s a breakdown of the two decisions concerning amendments to the Convention on a common transit procedure:

**Decision No. 2/2025 – Montenegro Accession**

This decision focuses on adapting the Convention on a common transit procedure to include Montenegro as a contracting party. It modifies Appendices III and IIIa of the Convention to reflect Montenegro’s accession. The key changes involve incorporating the Montenegrin language versions of relevant references and updating guarantee forms. A transitional period is established to allow the continued use of older guarantee forms with necessary adaptations until the end of 2026.

* **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Article 1:** Amends Appendices III and IIIa of the Convention as detailed in the Annex.
* **Article 2:** Specifies that the decision takes effect on the date Montenegro becomes a contracting party to the Convention. It also allows for the use of older versions of guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6 to Appendix III) until December 31, 2026, provided they are adapted geographically and concerning addresses for service or authorized agents.
* **Annex:**
* Replaces Annexes C1, C2, and C4 of Appendix III with updated versions of the guarantor’s undertaking for individual guarantees, individual guarantees in the form of vouchers, and comprehensive guarantees, respectively. These updated annexes include Montenegro in the list of countries covered by the guarantee.
* Amends Annexes C5 and C6 by inserting “MONTENEGRO” in the list of countries.
* Amends Annex A1a of Appendix IIIa by adding Montenegrin language versions for various terms related to customs procedures and guarantees.
* **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The inclusion of Montenegro in the list of countries in the guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6) means that the common transit procedure will now apply to goods moving to, from, or through Montenegro.
* The transitional period allowing the use of older guarantee forms until December 31, 2026, provides flexibility for businesses to adapt to the new requirements.
* The addition of Montenegrin language versions for specific terms in Annex A1a ensures clarity and consistency in customs documentation related to Montenegro.

**Decision No. 4/2025 – Republic of Moldova Accession**

This decision adapts the Convention on a common transit procedure to include the Republic of Moldova as a contracting party. It modifies Appendix III of the Convention to reflect the Republic of Moldova’s accession. Since Romanian is the official language of the Republic of Moldova, there is no need to insert a new language version of the references used in the Convention. A transitional period is established to allow the continued use of older guarantee forms with necessary adaptations until the end of 2026.

* **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Article 1:** Amends Appendix III of the Convention as detailed in the Annex.
* **Article 2:** Specifies that the decision takes effect on the date the Republic of Moldova becomes a contracting party to the Convention. It also allows for the use of older versions of guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6 to Appendix III) until December 31, 2026, provided they are adapted geographically and concerning addresses for service or authorized agents.
* **Annex:**
* Replaces Annexes C1, C2, and C4 of Appendix III with updated versions of the guarantor’s undertaking for individual guarantees, individual guarantees in the form of vouchers, and comprehensive guarantees, respectively. These updated annexes include the Republic of Moldova in the list of countries covered by the guarantee.
* Amends Annexes C5 and C6 by inserting “MOLDOVA” in the list of countries.
* **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The inclusion of the Republic of Moldova in the list of countries in the guarantee forms (Annexes C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6) means that the common transit procedure will now apply to goods moving to, from, or through the Republic of Moldova.
* The transitional period allowing the use of older guarantee forms until December 31, 2026, provides flexibility for businesses to adapt to the new requirements.

****
Ukraine is mentioned in both acts as country covered by guarantees.

Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on cooperation with and through the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the Federal Police of Brazil

This is an analysis of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on cooperation with and through the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL) and the Federal Police of Brazil.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

The agreement establishes a framework for enhanced cooperation between the EU (specifically Europol) and Brazil’s law enforcement authorities, primarily the Federal Police. It aims to facilitate the exchange of both personal and non-personal data to support the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses, including serious crime and terrorism. The agreement includes provisions to safeguard human rights, fundamental freedoms, privacy, and data protection. The data sharing under this agreement is voluntary and doesn’t override existing mutual legal assistance arrangements between Brazil and EU member states.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The agreement is structured into six chapters, covering general provisions, exchange of personal data and data protection, exchange of non-personal data, common provisions for data exchange, dispute resolution, and final provisions.

* **Chapter I (General Provisions):** Defines the agreement’s objective and scope, focusing on cooperative relations between Europol and Brazilian authorities. It also provides definitions for key terms like “Contracting Parties,” “Europol,” “competent authorities,” “personal data,” and “criminal offenses.”
* **Chapter II (Exchange of Personal Data and Data Protection):** Sets out detailed rules for the processing of personal data, including the purposes of processing, general data protection principles, special categories of personal data, automated processing, onward transfers, rights of access, rectification, erasure, and restriction, notification of data breaches, storage, logging, and the role of supervisory authorities.
* **Chapter III (Exchange of Non-Personal Data):** Establishes data protection principles for non-personal data and regulates the onward transfer of such data.
* **Chapter IV (Common Provisions):** Includes provisions for assessing the reliability of data sources and the accuracy of data, as well as measures for ensuring data security.
* **Chapter V (Disputes):** Covers the settlement of disputes, suspension of the agreement, and termination conditions.
* **Chapter VI (Final Provisions):** Addresses the relationship with other international instruments, exchange of classified information, requests for public access, designation of a national contact point, deployment of liaison officers, establishment of a secure communication line, expenses, notification of implementation measures, entry into force, amendment procedures, and review/evaluation processes.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Data Protection Principles (Articles 4, 5, 6):** These articles outline the core principles for handling personal data, including fairness, lawfulness, accuracy, and security. Special attention is given to sensitive data categories (e.g., racial origin, health data) and automated decision-making.
* **Onward Transfer Restrictions (Article 7):** This article sets strict conditions for transferring data received under the agreement to other authorities or third countries, requiring prior authorization and adherence to the original purpose and safeguards.
* **Data Subject Rights (Articles 8, 9):** These articles guarantee data subjects the right to access their data, request rectification or erasure, and be informed of any restrictions or refusals.
* **Data Breach Notification (Articles 10, 11):** These articles establish procedures for notifying data breaches to relevant authorities and, in certain cases, to the data subjects themselves.
* **Supervisory Authority (Article 14):** This article ensures independent oversight of data protection matters by a public authority.
* **Assessment of Data Reliability (Article 18):** This article provides a labeling system for assessing the reliability of data sources and the accuracy of the data exchanged.
* **National Contact Point (Article 26):** This article designates a national contact point within the Brazilian Federal Police to act as the central point of contact between Europol and competent authorities of Brazil.