Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1956
This regulation establishes detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, which protects geographical indications (GIs) for craft and industrial products. It covers procedures for registration, opposition, amendments, and cancellation of GIs, as well as the Union register, electronic submission, use of the Union symbol, fees, and cooperation between Member States. Key provisions include the conditions for single producers applying for GI registration, requirements for proof of origin, content limits for the single document, procedures for different types of amendments, harmonized use of the PGI symbol and the creation of the register of geographical indications.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2386
This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards from China, following an expiry review. Duty rates range from 18.1% to 42.3% depending on the company. It specifies conditions for individual duty rates, including a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration and requires Member States to report the number of imported items.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2411
This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 by updating the representative import prices for certain poultry meat, egg products, and egg albumin based on origin. The new pricing impacts importers and traders dealing with the specified products, for example, changes to the representative price for “Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, legs and cuts thereof, frozen” (CN code 0207 14 60) originating from Brazil (BR) to EUR 167.0 per 100 kg, with a security of EUR 0 per 100 kg.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2385
This regulation introduces the registration of imports of specific alkyl phosphonic acids and their sodium salts from China, responding to an anti-dumping complaint. It mandates customs authorities to register these imports, identified by CN and TARIC codes, allowing for the potential retroactive application of anti-dumping duties if the investigation confirms dumping practices.
Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) – Case C-729/23 P
This judgment concerns an appeal by Spain regarding financial corrections imposed by the Commission for expenditures under the EAGF and EAFRD. The core issue involves administrative penalties related to coupled support in the animal sector, particularly late notifications of animal identification and registration. The Court clarifies that penalties can apply even if animals meet requirements by a set deadline, and it addresses the implications of the “no-request system.” Key regulations referenced include Regulations (EU) No 1306/2013, 639/2014, 640/2014, and 809/2014.
The Court also referes to potentially eligible animal.
Regulation No. 2988/95
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Regulation No. 2988/95 on limitation periods for irregularities affecting the EU’s financial interests. The Court clarifies that Member States cannot set final deadlines for imposing penalties beyond twice the standard four-year limitation period for proceedings and cannot alter the starting point for calculating the limitation period for penalties.
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007
This judgment interprets Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (European Enforcement Order) and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (service of judicial documents). The Court clarifies that the Member State of enforcement cannot refuse enforcement of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order based on irregularities in the service of the initial claim in the Member State of origin.
Case C-137/24 P, Michael Heßler v European Commission
This judgment concerns an appeal regarding a tax abatement for a dependent child. The Court clarifies that an email can be an “act adversely affecting” an official if it changes their legal position. It also confirms that entitlement to the tax abatement is linked to the “dependent child” concept but not conditional on the dependent child allowance payment, taking into account the age limits laid down in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC)
This judgment concerns the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC). The Court rules that the Directive does not prevent a national law that allows a court to reduce a claim in an order for payment procedure due to unfair terms, without declaring them void, and allows the creditor to pursue the remaining amount in separate proceedings, as long as the consumer has the opportunity to obtain a declaration of invalidity of the unfair terms in other legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Directive does not require the consumer’s participation in the initial unfairness review during the order for payment procedure, as long as the order for payment does not have res judicata effect (meaning it’s not final) and the consumer’s right to be heard is guaranteed in subsequent proceedings.
Case A.B. vs. Government of the Province of Carinthia, Austria
This judgment involves the interpretation of EU law on the free movement of workers and equal treatment in employment. The Court clarifies that national legislation that hinders free movement by not fully considering previous periods of equivalent service completed in another EEA State can be a barrier. However, the Court finds that the Austrian legislation in question does not constitute direct or indirect discrimination based on age.
The Court ruled that Article 45(1) TFEU precludes the legislation of a Member State under which periods of equivalent service completed by a person in another EEA State before that person entered into service as a civil servant in the first Member State and which have not previously been taken into account for the purposes of his or her salary classification must be taken into account retroactively where the situation of that civil servant with regard to the salary scale results from advancement based on seniority and not from promotion granted by virtue of a decision falling within the discretionary power of the administration.
Case C-525/24, Santander Renta Variable España Pensiones, Fondo de Pensiones v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
This preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 63 TFEU (free movement of capital) in the context of taxation of dividends paid to a Spanish pension fund. The Court clarifies that while Member States can require taxpayers to provide necessary proof for tax advantages, they cannot impose excessive administrative burdens that make it impossible for non-residents to benefit from those advantages. The Court distinguishes between the requirements for obtaining an immediate exemption from withholding tax and for obtaining a refund of tax already levied. For immediate exemptions stricter rules may be applicable.
Article 15(5) of Directive 2004/25/EC
This is a preliminary ruling clarifying that the presumption that the consideration offered in a mandatory takeover bid is fair is rebuttable. This means that minority shareholders can challenge the offered price under certain conditions outlined in the Directive, such as when the market prices of the securities have been manipulated or affected by exceptional occurrences. The rebuttal is possible if these circumstances were not previously considered by the supervisory authority or came to light after the bid was closed.
Directive 93/13/EEC
The most important provision is the Court’s ruling that national legislation cannot impose disproportionately high court costs on consumers who are defendants in actions brought by sellers or suppliers to recover loan capital after the loan agreement has been invalidated due to unfair terms.
Decision No 1/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport
This decision establishes a list of categories, types, and degrees of seriousness of infringements of road transport rules that may lead to a road haulage operator losing their good repute. Annex I lists serious infringements against Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, divided into categories of seriousness. Annex II defines the degrees of seriousness and sets out how repeated infringements should be treated.
Decision No 2/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport
This Decision establishes a framework for the exchange of information between the EU and the UK regarding road transport undertakings. It specifies the minimum data requirements for national electronic registers, including company details, transport manager information, types of authorizations, records of serious infringements, and vehicle registration numbers. It also outlines who can access this data and for what purposes.
Decision No 3/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport
This Decision establishes the financial contribution of the United Kingdom to certain EU road transport information systems, namely the Internal Market Information System Road Transport Posting Declaration module (IMI) and the European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU). It sets out the amount, modalities, and payment schedule for this contribution. The initial annual contribution is set at EUR 114 305,10, with subsequent annual revisions based on the HICP. The payment deadline is set at 30 June of each year, starting in 2026.
Decision No 3/2025 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee
This decision replaces the annex to the Air Transport Agreement between the EU and Switzerland, updating the legal framework governing air transport relations. It incorporates the latest EU aviation legislation into the agreement, including key regulations in areas such as aviation safety (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139), aviation security (Regulation (EC) No 300/2008), and air traffic management (Regulation (EC) No 549/2004).
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No. 102/25/COL
This decision concerns the form, content, time limits, and level of detail required for notifications under Article 32 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the European Electronic Communications Code, within the European Economic Area (EEA). It provides guidance to national regulatory authorities (NRAs) on how to effectively notify draft measures related to electronic communications.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1956 of 29 September 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products
Okay, I will provide a detailed description of the provisions of the act.
**1. Essence of the Act:**
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1956 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, which protects geographical indications (GIs) for craft and industrial products. This implementing regulation specifies procedures for registration, opposition, amendments, and cancellation of GIs, as well as rules for the Union register, electronic submission, use of the Union symbol, fees, and cooperation between Member States. It aims to ensure the smooth functioning of the GI market and uniform implementation of the overarching regulation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured into 12 sections, covering various aspects of GI protection:
* **Section 1 (General Provisions):** Defines the subject matter and key terms used in the regulation.
* **Section 2 (Application for Registration):** Details the requirements for single producers, notification of applications, treatment of existing names, joint applications, product specifications, proof of origin, and the examination procedure by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
* **Section 3 (Opposition Procedure):** Sets out the procedural rules for lodging and processing oppositions to GI registrations, including consultations and the role of the Advisory Board.
* **Section 4 (Amendments to the Product Specification):** Establishes procedures for Union amendments, standard amendments, and temporary amendments to product specifications, ensuring a consistent approach across the Union.
* **Section 5 (Cancellation Procedure):** Defines the process for requesting and implementing the cancellation of GI protection.
* **Section 6 (Decisions):** Specifies the publication of decisions related to GI registrations, amendments, and cancellations.
* **Section 7 (Use of Union Symbols):** Provides rules for the use of the Union symbol, indication, and abbreviation for protected geographical indications.
* **Section 8 (Fees):** Sets out the fee structure for various procedures related to GI protection.
* **Section 9 (Union Register):** Details the structure and content of the Union register for geographical indications.
* **Section 10 (Mutual Assistance and Cooperation):** Establishes rules for mutual assistance and cooperation between Member States in the control and enforcement of GI protection.
* **Section 11 (Communication and Publication):** Defines the communication channels and rules for the submission and publication of information related to GI protection.
* **Section 12 (Entry into Force and Application):** Specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation.
**Main changes compared to previous versions:**
As this is a new regulation implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, there are no previous versions to compare it to. It establishes the detailed operational framework for the new GI protection system for craft and industrial products.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Article 3 (Single Producer):** Clarifies the conditions under which a single producer can apply for GI registration and ensures that other producers can use the protected name if they comply with the product specification.
* **Article 8 (Proof of Origin):** Requires the product specification to include procedures for producers to demonstrate the origin of the product, raw materials, and other relevant items from the defined geographical area.
* **Article 10 (Presentation of the Single Document):** Specifies the content and length limits for the single document, which is a key summary of the product specification.
* **Articles 18-24 (Amendments to the Product Specification):** Detail the procedures for different types of amendments (Union, standard, temporary), which are crucial for adapting GI protection to changing circumstances.
* **Article 29 (The use of the Union symbol, indication and abbreviation):** Harmonizes the use of the PGI symbol.
* **Section 10 (Mutual Assistance and Cooperation):** Establishes a framework for cooperation between Member States in enforcing GI protection, which is essential for combating fraud and ensuring compliance.
* **Article 31 (Union register):** Provides for the creation of the register of geographical indications.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2386 of 27 November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China 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) 2025/2386, which imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China. This regulation follows an expiry review, which is a process to determine if existing anti-dumping measures should continue. The regulation aims to protect Union producers from dumped imports from China.
The structure of the regulation includes sections on the procedure, product definition, dumping analysis, injury assessment, Union interest, and the anti-dumping measures themselves. It details the history of previous investigations and measures on ironing boards from China, the request for the expiry review, and the investigation process. The regulation also specifies the product under review, the product concerned, and the like product. It determines that dumping has continued during the review investigation period and is likely to continue if measures are repealed.
The most important provisions of this act are:
– Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China.
– Duty rates ranging from 18.1% to 39.6% for specific companies and 42.3% for all other companies in the People’s Republic of China.
– Conditions for applying individual duty rates, including the requirement of a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
– Obligation for Member States to report the number of imported items.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2411 of 22 November 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2411 amends Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, which sets out rules for additional import duties and representative prices in the poultry and egg sectors. The new regulation updates the representative import prices for certain poultry meat and egg products and egg albumin to reflect price variations based on their origin. This adjustment is intended to ensure the import duties accurately reflect current market prices.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text in the annex of this regulation. Article 2 states that the regulation comes into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex contains a table specifying the CN code, description, representative price (EUR/100 kg), security under Article 3 (EUR/100 kg), and origin for a specific poultry product.
The most important provision is the updated pricing information in the Annex, which directly impacts importers and traders dealing with the specified poultry products. Specifically, it changes the representative price for “Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, legs and cuts thereof, frozen” (CN code 0207 14 60) originating from Brazil (BR) to EUR 167.0 per 100 kg, with a security of EUR 0 per 100 kg. This new pricing will be used to calculate import duties, affecting the cost of importing these products into the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2385 of 27 November 2025 making imports of certain alkyl phosphonic acids and their sodium salts originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2385 introduces the registration of imports of certain alkyl phosphonic acids and their sodium salts, specifically 2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid (PBTC) and its sodium salt (PBTC-Na4), originating from the People’s Republic of China. The regulation is a response to an anti-dumping complaint and aims to enable the potential retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties if the ongoing investigation confirms dumping practices.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the background and justification for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of the specified chemicals from China, identified by their CN and TARIC codes. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will take effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that the registration requirement will expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force.
The most important provision is Article 1, which mandates the registration of imports of the specified chemicals. This registration is crucial because it allows the EU to potentially apply anti-dumping duties retroactively to these imports if the investigation determines that they are being dumped on the EU market.
Arrêt de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 27 novembre 2025.#Royaume d’Espagne contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Fonds européen agricole de garantie (FEAGA) – Fonds européen agricole pour le développement rural (Feader) – Règlement (UE) no 1306/2013 – Article 63 – Traitement des notifications tardives – Régularisations – Règlement délégué (UE) no 639/2014 – Article 53 – Mesure de soutien couplé dans le secteur animal – Règlement délégué (UE) no 640/2014 – Article 31 – Sanctions administratives – Règlement d’exécution (UE) no 809/2014 – Article 34 – Sélection de l’échantillon de contrôle.#Affaire C-729/23 P.
This is an analysis of a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) from November 27, 2025, in case C-729/23 P, concerning an appeal by the Kingdom of Spain against a previous ruling by the General Court. The case revolves around the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), specifically dealing with financial corrections imposed on Spain by the European Commission for certain expenditures. The core issue concerns the application of administrative penalties related to coupled support in the animal sector, particularly regarding late notifications of animal identification and registration.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment refers to several key EU regulations:
* **Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013:** This regulation covers the financing, management, and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Article 63 addresses undue payments and administrative penalties.
* **Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014:** This regulation supplements Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, setting rules for direct payments to farmers. Article 53 outlines conditions for granting coupled support in the animal sector, including animal identification and registration requirements.
* **Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014:** This regulation supplements Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 regarding the integrated administration and control system (IACS), conditions for refusing or withdrawing payments, and administrative penalties. Article 31 specifically addresses penalties related to animals declared under animal-related aid schemes.
* **Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014:** This regulation lays down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 concerning the integrated administration and control system (IACS). Article 34 details the selection of control samples, and Article 63 covers the withdrawal of support and administrative penalties.
The appeal by Spain challenges the General Court’s decision, which upheld the Commission’s financial correction. Spain argues that the Commission incorrectly applied the regulations, particularly concerning the imposition of penalties for late notifications of animal identification and registration, even when the issues were rectified.
**Key Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 53(4) of Regulation No 639/2014, as amended by Regulation 2015/1383, which allows animals to be eligible for support if identification and registration requirements are met by a certain date. However, the Court confirms that administrative penalties can still apply for late notifications, even if the animal is ultimately deemed eligible for support.
The judgment also addresses the “no-request system” (Article 21(4) of Regulation No 809/2014), where Member States use information from animal databases for aid applications. The Court confirms that in such systems, all potentially eligible animals (PEA) in the database are subject to controls, and penalties apply for non-compliance with identification and registration requirements.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Late Notifications:** Even if an animal meets identification and registration requirements by a set deadline, late notifications can still trigger administrative penalties.
* **”No-Request System”:** In Member States using the “no-request system,” all animals in the database are considered potentially eligible and are subject to controls and potential penalties.
* **Proportionality:** Penalties must be proportionate to the severity of the non-compliance, but the principle of proportionality does not justify exempting penalties for breaches of identification and registration requirements.
* **Burden of Proof:** Member States must demonstrate the existence of a reliable and operational control system to challenge the Commission’s findings of non-compliance.
* **”Potentially eligible animal”:** An animal that, a priori, could potentially fulfil the eligibility criteria for the granting of aid under the animal aid scheme.
* **Article 15 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014:** Administrative sanctions are not applicable if the beneficiary has notified the competent authority in writing that the aid application is incorrect or has become so since the application was submitted.
* **Article 31 of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014:** Reduction of the total amount of aid or support to which the beneficiary may be entitled is imposed if a difference is found between the number of animals declared and the number of animals determined in an application for animal-related aid.
* **Article 34 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014:** Between 20 and 25 % of the minimum number of beneficiaries to be checked on the spot are selected at random.
* **Article 53(4) of Regulation No 639/2014:** Member States define, as a condition of eligibility for support, the requirements for the identification and registration of animals.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Mikroregion Porta Bohemica v Odvolací finanční ředitelství.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Concept of ‘irregularity’ – Article 1(2) – Limitation periods – Article 3 – Starting point and duration of the limitation periods – Project co-financed through EU resources.Case C-539/24.
This is the Court’s judgment on the interpretation of Regulation No. 2988/95, specifically concerning limitation periods for irregularities affecting the EU’s financial interests. The case originates from a dispute in the Czech Republic regarding a project co-financed by EU resources, where irregularities were found in public contracts. The core issue revolves around the time limits for initiating proceedings and imposing penalties for such irregularities.
The judgment clarifies three main points regarding Regulation No. 2988/95. First, a Member State that hasn’t extended the standard four-year limitation period for proceedings cannot set a final deadline for imposing penalties beyond twice that four-year period. Second, a Member State cannot alter the starting point for calculating the limitation period for penalties to be the first day of the year following the irregularity; it must start from when the irregularity occurred. Third, the limitation periods defined in the Regulation apply to irregularities in projects linked to EU policy, even if those irregularities impact both EU and Member State financial interests.
The most important provision of the act is that Member States must adhere to the EU-defined limitation periods for addressing financial irregularities, ensuring consistent application of the rules across the Union. Member States cannot circumvent the EU regulation by setting longer limitation periods for imposing penalties without extending the initial period for starting proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Manuel Costa Filhos, Lda. v Oü Wine Port of Paldiski.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Rights of the defence – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Article 20 – Enforcement procedure – Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement – Articles 21 and 23 – Grounds for the refusal, stay or limitation of enforcement – Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 – Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents – Article 8 – Refusal to accept the document – Failure to provide a translation into either a language which the addressee understands or the official language of the Member State of enforcement or, as the case may be, one of the official languages of the place where service of the document is to be effected – Omission of the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 – Consequences – Assessment by the courts of the Member State of origin.Case C-643/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, which creates a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, which deals with the service of judicial documents. The case revolves around a dispute between a Portuguese company and an Estonian company, where the Portuguese company is contesting the enforcement in Portugal of a judgment issued in Estonia and certified as a European Enforcement Order. The core issue is whether the enforcement can be opposed in Portugal due to irregularities in the service of the initial claim in Estonia, specifically the lack of a translation and a standard form informing the defendant of their right to refuse the document.
The judgment clarifies the division of responsibilities between the Member State of origin (where the judgment was issued) and the Member State of enforcement. It emphasizes that the Member State of enforcement must enforce a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, and it can only refuse or stay enforcement under specific conditions outlined in Regulation No 805/2004, such as irreconcilable judgments or challenges to the judgment in the Member State of origin. The Court rules that the failure to properly serve the initial claim, including providing a translation and the required standard form, is a matter to be addressed in the Member State of origin, not in the enforcement proceedings.
The most important provision of the act is that Article 20(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 precludes the legislation of Member State of enforcement which enables the judgment debtor to oppose the enforcement of a court decision delivered and certified as a European Enforcement Order, to oppose that enforcement on the ground that, during the proceedings which led to the delivery of that decision, the document instituting the proceedings was served on the judgment debtor by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, without it being written in, or accompanied by a translation into, either a language which that party understands or the official language of the Member State of enforcement or, as the case may be, one of the official languages of the place where service of that document is to be effected, and without it being accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, which enables that party to be informed of his or her right to refuse to accept the document to be served.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Michael Heßler v European Commission.Appeal – Civil service – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union – Pre-litigation procedure – Article 90 – Concept of an act adversely affecting an official – Tax for the benefit of the European Union – Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 – Article 3 – Tax abatement for a dependent child – Conditions for granting – Concept of ‘dependent child’ – Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Article 2 – Dependent child allowance.Case C-137/24 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) in the case C-137/24 P, Michael Heßler v European Commission. The judgment concerns an appeal by Mr. Heßler against the General Court’s decision to dismiss his action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting his requests for a tax abatement for a dependent child. The Court of Justice partially set aside the General Court’s judgment, finding that the General Court erred in its assessment of what constitutes an “act adversely affecting” an official. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the remainder of the appeal and rejected Mr. Heßler’s original claim for the tax abatement.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the legal context, including relevant articles from the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Regulation No. 260/68 regarding the tax for the benefit of the European Union and the dependent child allowance. It also summarizes the factual background of the dispute, the procedure before the General Court, and the judgment under appeal.
2. **Appeal:** It presents the forms of order sought by the appellant (Mr. Heßler) and the defendant (European Commission). It then details the three grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Heßler: (i) infringement of the concept of “act adversely affecting,” (ii) infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the right to be heard, and (iii) infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 260/68 and failure to regard the binding nature of the Commission’s internal acts.
3. **Findings of the Court:** The Court analyzes each ground of appeal, ultimately upholding the first ground in part (regarding the “act adversely affecting” determination) but rejecting the second and third grounds.
4. **Action before the General Court:** Because the Court of Justice found an error in law, it then ruled on the substance of the initial case brought before the General Court.
5. **Costs:** It determines how the costs of the proceedings should be allocated between the parties.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* **Definition of “act adversely affecting”:** The Court clarifies that an email from the administration can be considered an “act adversely affecting” an official if it directly and immediately affects their interests by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position, regardless of whether the email is explicitly labeled as a formal decision.
* **Tax Abatement and Dependent Child Allowance:** The Court confirms that while entitlement to the tax abatement for a dependent child is linked to the concept of a “dependent child” as defined in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is not conditional on the actual payment of the dependent child allowance. The Court also confirms that the age limits laid down in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be taken into account.
* **Internal Directives:** The Court reiterates that internal directives adopted by EU institutions cannot derogate from binding and higher-ranking acts, such as the Staff Regulations or Regulations.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Investcapital Ltd v M.H.S.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 6(1) – Article 7(1) – Contract concerning a bank account – Order for payment procedure – Review of the court’s own motion of whether contractual terms are unfair – Proposal by the court to reduce the claim by the amount corresponding to the application of a term considered to be unfair – Acceptance by the seller or supplier and possibility to claim that amount in subsequent proceedings – Principle of effectiveness – Participation of the consumer in the review of whether a contractual term is unfair.Case C-509/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC). The case originates from Spain and concerns a dispute over a bank account contract and an order for payment procedure. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which national courts must protect consumers from unfair contract terms, particularly in expedited procedures like order for payment proceedings.
The judgment addresses whether a national court can reduce a claim in an order for payment procedure due to unfair terms without declaring those terms void, and whether the creditor can then pursue the remaining amount in separate proceedings. It also examines whether the consumer needs to participate in the initial unfairness assessment during the order for payment procedure.
The CJEU rules that the Directive does not prevent a national law that allows a court to reduce a claim in an order for payment procedure due to unfair terms, without declaring them void, and allows the creditor to pursue the remaining amount in separate proceedings. However, this is conditional on the consumer having the opportunity to obtain a declaration of invalidity of the unfair terms in other legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Directive does not require the consumer’s participation in the initial unfairness review during the order for payment procedure, as long as the order for payment does not have res judicata effect (meaning it’s not final) and the consumer’s right to be heard is guaranteed in subsequent proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.A.B. v Kärntner Landesregierung.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for workers – Article 45 TFEU – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Article 7(1) – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Civil servants’ salary scale – National legislation excluding the consideration of previous periods of equivalent service completed in another Member State – Exclusion following a decision, falling within the discretionary power of the administration, to grant a promotion to the civil servant – Promotion subject to completion of a certain number of years of service – National legislation excluding the consideration of previous periods of equivalent service completed in the Member State concerned.Case C-356/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law on the free movement of workers and equal treatment in employment. The case revolves around an Austrian civil servant, A.B., and the Government of the Province of Carinthia, Austria, concerning the calculation of A.B.’s seniority and salary scale, specifically whether previous periods of professional service, both in Austria and abroad, should be taken into account.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses three main questions raised by the referring court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Kärnten). These questions concern:
1. Whether Article 45 TFEU and Regulation 492/2011 preclude national legislation that doesn’t consider previous periods of service in other EU Member States when a civil servant’s remuneration is based on a discretionary promotion rather than periodic advancement.
2. Whether Directive 2000/78 and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national legislation that doesn’t consider previous periods of service in other EU Member States when a civil servant’s remuneration is based on a discretionary promotion, especially if such promotions are typically available only after many years of service, potentially discriminating against older civil servants.
3. Whether Article 45 TFEU and Article 20 of the Charter preclude national legislation that fully considers periods of equivalent professional activity completed outside Austria but does not consider equivalent professional activities in the private sector within Austria.
The Court’s judgment provides interpretations of Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers), Regulation 492/2011 (freedom of movement for workers within the Union), Directive 2000/78 (equal treatment in employment and occupation), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Free Movement of Workers (Article 45 TFEU):** The Court clarifies that national legislation that hinders or makes less attractive the exercise of free movement for workers is generally prohibited. Specifically, not fully considering previous periods of equivalent service completed in another EEA State can be a barrier to free movement.
* **Non-Discrimination (Regulation 492/2011):** The Court states that regulations that may indirectly discriminate against workers who are nationals of other Member States are prohibited unless objectively justified and proportionate.
* **Equal Treatment in Employment (Directive 2000/78):** The Court finds that the Austrian legislation in question does not constitute direct or indirect discrimination based on age.
* The Court ruled that Article 45(1) TFEU precludes the legislation of a Member State under which periods of equivalent service completed by a person in another EEA State before that person entered into service as a civil servant in the first Member State and which have not previously been taken into account for the purposes of his or her salary classification must be taken into account retroactively where the situation of that civil servant with regard to the salary scale results from advancement based on seniority and not from promotion granted by virtue of a decision falling within the discretionary power of the administration.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Santander Renta Variable España Pensiones, Fondo de Pensiones v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Taxation – Corporation tax on dividends – Legal person governed by Spanish law, taxable person not resident in Portugal – Withholding tax – Exemption – Standard of proof – Certificate attesting that the conditions for exemption are satisfied – Article 65 TFEU – Overriding reasons in the public interest – Effectiveness of fiscal supervision – Effective collection of tax – Cooperation and mutual assistance between the competent authorities of the Member States.Case C-525/24.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-525/24, Santander Renta Variable España Pensiones, Fondo de Pensiones v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from Portugal regarding the interpretation of Article 63 TFEU (free movement of capital) in the context of taxation of dividends paid to a Spanish pension fund. The core issue is whether Portugal’s tax rules requiring specific proof from non-resident pension funds to obtain an exemption from corporation tax on dividends are compatible with EU law. The Court clarifies the extent to which Member States can impose different requirements on resident and non-resident entities regarding tax exemptions.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the subject matter and the parties involved.
2. **Legal Context:** Details the relevant provisions of international law (double taxation convention between Portugal and Spain), EU law (TFEU, Directives 2016/2341, 2010/24/EU, and 2011/16/EU), and Portuguese law (Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais and Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Coletivas).
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the factual background of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the questions posed by the Portuguese court to the CJEU.
4. **Consideration of the Request for a Preliminary Ruling:** This section contains the Court’s analysis and answers to the questions. It begins with preliminary observations addressing the Portuguese Government’s arguments and the scope of the questions. The Court then addresses the first question, concerning the compatibility of the proof requirements with Article 63(1) TFEU. It finds that the requirements constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital but examines whether they can be justified under Article 65 TFEU. The Court distinguishes between the requirements for immediate exemption from withholding tax and for a subsequent refund of tax levied. Finally, the Court states that there is no need to answer the second question.
5. **Costs:** Allocates costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment are:
* **Article 63 TFEU and Restrictions on the Free Movement of Capital:** The Court reaffirms that measures discouraging non-residents from investing in a Member State constitute restrictions on the free movement of capital.
* **Article 65 TFEU and Justifications for Restrictions:** The Court reiterates that differences in treatment between residents and non-residents are only permissible if they concern objectively different situations or are justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, such as the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the effective collection of tax.
* **Burden of Proof and Administrative Requirements:** The Court emphasizes that while Member States can require taxpayers to provide necessary proof for tax advantages, they cannot impose excessive administrative burdens that make it impossible for non-residents to benefit from those advantages.
* **Immediate Exemption vs. Refund:** The Court distinguishes between the requirements for obtaining an immediate exemption from withholding tax and for obtaining a refund of tax already levied. It finds that stricter requirements may be justified for immediate exemptions to ensure the entity withholding the tax is certain of the recipient’s eligibility. However, for refunds, the tax authorities can use mutual assistance mechanisms to verify the evidence provided by non-resident companies, making stricter proof requirements less justifiable.
* **Directive 2016/2341:** The Court notes that this Directive does not grant pension funds the right to request specific declarations from their supervisory authorities, making the possibility of obtaining such a declaration dependent on national legislation.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.YO v SVEMA TRADE, d. o. o.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Company law – Directive 2004/25/EC – Mandatory takeover bid – Squeeze-out of holders of securities – Minority shareholder protection – Third subparagraph of Article 15(5) – Consideration offered in the bid presumed to be fair – Rebuttable presumption.Case C-567/24.
This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 15(5) of Directive 2004/25/EC on takeover bids, specifically regarding the squeeze-out of minority shareholders after a mandatory takeover bid. The case originates from Slovenia and revolves around a dispute concerning the fairness of the financial compensation offered to minority shareholders during a squeeze-out procedure. The CJEU is asked to clarify whether the presumption that the consideration offered in a mandatory bid is fair is rebuttable or irrebuttable.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 15(5) of Directive 2004/25/EC. The court addresses whether the presumption that the consideration offered in a mandatory takeover bid is fair can be challenged. The court analyses the context and purpose of the directive to determine whether the presumption of fair price in a mandatory takeover bid can be considered absolute or relative.
The CJEU rules that the presumption that the consideration offered in a mandatory takeover bid is fair is indeed rebuttable. This means that minority shareholders can challenge the offered price under certain conditions. The Court clarifies that the presumption can be challenged in circumstances outlined in the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of the Directive, such as when the market prices of the securities have been manipulated or affected by exceptional occurrences. The rebuttal is possible if these circumstances were not previously considered by the supervisory authority or came to light after the bid was closed.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2025.Bank Millennium S.A. v PR.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Effects of a finding that a term is unfair – Invalidity of the contract – Action brought by a seller or supplier for restitution of the loan capital paid under an agreement declared invalid – Rules on the award of costs – Different methods of calculating court costs according to the status of the applicant – Principle of effectiveness – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law.Case C-746/24.
Here’s a breakdown of the Court’s judgment:
**Essence of the Act**
This judgment addresses the issue of unfair terms in consumer contracts, specifically concerning loan agreements. It clarifies how EU law, particularly Directive 93/13/EEC, impacts national rules regarding the allocation of court costs when a loan agreement is invalidated due to unfair terms. The case revolves around a situation where a bank sues a consumer to recover loan capital after the loan agreement was annulled due to unfair terms. The Court is asked whether national rules can force the consumer to pay potentially high court costs in such a scenario.
**Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, which comes from a Polish court.
* It identifies the relevant EU law (Directive 93/13/EEC) and Polish law (Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure).
* It summarizes the dispute in the main proceedings, involving Bank Millennium SA and a consumer, PR, concerning a loan agreement denominated in Swiss francs.
* It presents the question referred by the Polish court, which asks whether EU law precludes national provisions that allow consumers to be ordered to pay the costs of proceedings initiated by a seller or supplier to recover sums disbursed under an agreement invalidated due to unfair terms.
* The Court then considers the admissibility of the question, finding it admissible.
* The core of the judgment provides the Court’s analysis and answer to the question, focusing on the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness.
* The Court concludes that EU law *does* preclude national legislation that results in consumers bearing disproportionately high court costs in such cases.
**Key Provisions and Implications**
The most important provision is the Court’s ruling that national legislation cannot impose disproportionately high court costs on consumers who are defendants in actions brought by sellers or suppliers to recover loan capital after the loan agreement has been invalidated due to unfair terms.
Here’s why this is important:
* **Consumer Protection:** The ruling reinforces the protection afforded to consumers under EU law, ensuring that they are not deterred from exercising their rights due to the fear of incurring significant legal costs.
* **Principle of Effectiveness:** The judgment upholds the principle of effectiveness, which requires Member States to ensure that EU law is fully effective and that national rules do not undermine the objectives of EU directives.
* **Fairness in Cost Allocation:** The Court recognizes that national rules on cost allocation must be fair and must not create a substantial obstacle that discourages consumers from seeking judicial review of potentially unfair contractual terms.
* **National Court’s Duty:** The judgment reminds national courts of their duty to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, taking into account the objectives of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness.
**** This ruling has implications for Ukrainian citizens who have similar disputes with banks or other financial institutions within the EU, particularly if those disputes involve loan agreements containing unfair terms. It reinforces their right to effective legal remedies without being burdened by excessive court costs.
Decision No 1/2025 of the Specialised Committee on road Transport established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 30 October 2025 on a list of categories, types and degrees of seriousness of serious infringements which may lead to the loss of good repute for a road haulage operator [2025/2330]
This is a description of Decision No 1/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU, the European Atomic Energy Community and the UK.
This Decision establishes a list of categories, types, and degrees of seriousness of infringements of road transport rules that may lead to a road haulage operator losing their good repute. It supplements a list already present in Appendix 31-A-1-1 to Annex 31 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The goal is to enhance the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in the road haulage sector by creating a common list of infringements.
The Decision consists of two articles and two annexes. Article 1 defines the subject matter of the decision. Article 2 states that the decision enters into force on the day following its adoption, but it applies from 1 January 2026. Annex I contains tables that list categories and types of serious infringements against Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. These infringements are divided into three categories of seriousness: most serious infringement (MSI), very serious infringement (VSI), and serious infringement (SI). The infringements cover a wide range of topics, including driving periods, breaks, rest periods, tachograph use, weights, dimensions, roadworthiness, speed limitation devices, driver qualifications, driving licenses, transport of dangerous goods, licenses, driver attestations, animal transport, contractual obligations, and posting of drivers. Annex II defines the degrees of seriousness of serious infringements and sets out how repeated infringements should be treated. It also establishes a formula for calculating the frequency of infringements and sets thresholds beyond which infringements should be considered more serious.
The main provisions of this act are the lists of infringements in Annex I and the criteria for assessing their seriousness in Annex II. These provisions are important because they provide a common framework for determining when a road haulage operator’s good repute may be at risk. This can have significant consequences for the operator, as it may lead to the loss of their license to operate.
Decision No 2/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 30 October 2025 on the national electronic registers of road transport undertakings and the modalities of the exchange of information contained in those registers [2025/2331]
This Decision No 2/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport aims to establish a framework for the exchange of information between the EU and the UK regarding road transport undertakings. It focuses on setting up and maintaining national electronic registers containing data about road transport companies and defining the conditions for accessing and exchanging this data. The ultimate goal is to ensure compliance with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, particularly concerning the good repute and proper conduct of road haulage operators. This decision facilitates cooperation and transparency in the road transport sector between the EU and the UK.
The Decision is structured around eight articles, addressing key aspects of data management and information exchange. It specifies the minimum data requirements for national electronic registers, including company details, transport manager information, types of authorizations, records of serious infringements, and vehicle registration numbers. It also outlines who can access this data and for what purposes. The Decision adapts existing EU regulations on the European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) to include the UK, ensuring a harmonized approach to data exchange. Furthermore, it addresses the financial contribution of the UK to the maintenance of the ERRU system and allows for the suspension of the UK’s access to ERRU under certain conditions. Compared to previous regulations, this Decision specifically tailors the ERRU framework to the context of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK, accommodating the unique aspects of their relationship post-Brexit.
Several provisions of this Decision are particularly important. Firstly, the detailed list of data to be included in the national electronic registers ensures that all relevant information for assessing the repute and compliance of road transport operators is available. Secondly, the conditions of access to this data, differentiating between publicly accessible information and data accessible only to competent authorities, strike a balance between transparency and data protection. Finally, the adaptation of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480 ensures that the technical specifications for data exchange are aligned, facilitating seamless communication between the EU and the UK.
Decision No 3/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 30 October 2025 on the amount and modalities of the United Kingdom’s financial contribution to certain road transport information systems managed by the Union and the amendment to Decision No 1/2022 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport [2025/2329]
This Decision No 3/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Road Transport establishes the financial contribution of the United Kingdom to certain EU road transport information systems, namely the Internal Market Information System Road Transport Posting Declaration module (IMI) and the European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU). It sets out the amount, modalities, and payment schedule for this contribution. The decision also amends a previous decision (No 1/2022) to reflect these new financial arrangements. Finally, it provides a mechanism for adjusting the contribution in case of substantial changes to the operational costs of these systems.
The Decision is structured into 6 articles. Article 1 defines the objective of the Decision. Article 2 specifies the scope of the financial contribution, listing the IMI and ERRU systems. Article 3 details the amount and modalities of the UK’s financial contribution, including the initial amount, payment deadlines, and the method for annual revisions based on the European Consumer Price Index (HICP). Article 4 amends Decision No 1/2022, updating the reference to the UK’s financial contribution. Article 5 outlines the procedure for adjusting the financial contribution in case of substantial changes to the operational costs of the information systems. Article 6 establishes the entry into force of the Decision. Compared to previous arrangements, this Decision consolidates the UK’s financial contributions to multiple road transport information systems into a single annual payment. It also introduces a mechanism for adjusting the contribution based on the HICP, ensuring that the contribution remains aligned with inflation.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the amount and modalities of the financial contribution (Article 3). Specifically, the initial annual contribution is set at EUR 114 305,10, with subsequent annual revisions based on the HICP. The payment deadline is set at 30 June of each year, starting in 2026, with the first payment due within 20 days of the Decision’s entry into force. These provisions are crucial for the UK to ensure compliance with its financial obligations under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and to maintain access to the EU’s road transport information systems.
Decision No 3/2025 of the joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air Transport of 26 November 2025 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport [2025/2348]
This is a description of Decision No 3/2025 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee, which replaces the annex to the Air Transport Agreement between the EU and Switzerland. The decision updates the legal framework governing air transport relations between the EU and Switzerland by incorporating the latest EU aviation legislation into the agreement. This ensures that both parties adhere to the most current standards and regulations in areas such as aviation safety, security, air traffic management, and consumer protection. The updated annex will be effective from 1 February 2026.
The act consists of a sole article stating that the annex to the decision replaces the existing annex to the agreement from 1 February 2026, followed by the new annex itself. The annex is divided into nine sections, covering various aspects of aviation regulation:
1. Aviation liberalisation and other civil aviation rules
2. Competition rules
3. Aviation safety
4. Aviation Security
5. Air traffic management
6. Environment and noise
7. Consumer protection
8. Miscellaneous
9. Annexes
Each section lists specific EU regulations and directives that are now applicable to the agreement, including amendments and updates to those regulations. The annex also includes specific adaptations to ensure the regulations are applicable to Switzerland, such as how references to EU Member States or laws should be interpreted in the context of the agreement.
The most important provisions of this act are those that ensure the alignment of aviation standards and regulations between the EU and Switzerland. This includes the application of key regulations in areas such as aviation safety (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139), aviation security (Regulation (EC) No 300/2008), and air traffic management (Regulation (EC) No 549/2004). The inclusion of these regulations ensures that air transport operations between the EU and Switzerland are conducted according to the highest standards of safety and efficiency. Additionally, the provisions related to consumer protection (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) guarantee that passengers travelling between the EU and Switzerland have similar rights and protections.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 102/25/COL of 2 July 2025 EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation on the form, content, time limits and level of detail to be given in notifications under the procedures set in Article 32 of the Act referred to at point 5czs of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement [2025/2407]
This is the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No. 102/25/COL, issued on July 2, 2025. It concerns the form, content, time limits, and level of detail required for notifications under Article 32 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the European Electronic Communications Code, within the European Economic Area (EEA). This decision aims to ensure consistent application of the Code across the EEA by aligning with European Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/554. It provides guidance to national regulatory authorities (NRAs) on how to effectively notify draft measures related to electronic communications to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, BEREC, and other EEA NRAs.
The decision is structured to provide clear guidelines on the notification process. It covers aspects such as communication channels, the level of detail required in notifications, and the use of standard and short notification forms. The decision includes several annexes, which provide the specific forms to be used for different types of notifications. It emphasizes the importance of pre-notification contacts between NRAs and the Authority to discuss draft measures informally. It also clarifies the procedures for withdrawing notified draft measures and for handling confidential information.
The most important provisions of this act are those detailing the specific information that NRAs must provide when notifying draft measures. This includes the use of Standard and Short Notification Forms, each tailored to different types of measures. The Standard Notification Form is for more complex measures, such as market analyses and the imposition of remedies, while the Short Notification Form is for simpler, technical updates. The decision also specifies the information required for notifications related to symmetric access obligations, co-investment offers, voluntary separation, and migration from legacy infrastructure, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the Code are properly addressed in the notification process.
