Review of the EU legislation for 23/01/2026

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/118

This regulation sets out the harmonized requirements for certifying qualifications for individuals operating vessels on EU inland waterways.
It details the necessary skills, knowledge, practical examinations, simulator standards, and medical fitness criteria. Annex I focuses on competence standards, Annex II on examination standards, Annex III on simulator standards, and Annex IV on medical fitness standards.
The new regulation incorporates the updated European Standard for Qualifications in Inland Navigation 2024/1 (ES-QIN 2024/1). These new standards include provisions for strengthening competences at the management level for navigation near sea-going ships, references to the European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels and the European Standard for River Information Services, as well as terminological and editorial clarifications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/117

This regulation adjusts phytosanitary measures for certain plants, particularly Berberis thunbergii from the UK, to prevent phytosanitary risks. It modifies Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/2019 and (EU) 2020/1213.
Specifically, it removes certain Berberis thunbergii plants from the list of high-risk plants, introduces phytosanitary measures for importing them from the UK, corrects an error related to Alnus species, and reorders the entry for Cornus species.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/141

This regulation cancels the Union authorization for the biocidal product ‘Nordkalk CL 90-Q’ at the request of the manufacturer, Nordkalk AS. It repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1482 and sets deadlines for withdrawing the product from the market and ceasing its use, allowing for a period of grace to use existing stocks.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/142

This regulation mandates the registration of imports of robot lawn mowers from China. It will enable potential retroactive anti-dumping duties should an ongoing investigation determine that such duties are warranted, as it investigates alleged dumping practices.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290 to streamline the planning and reporting of outputs under output indicators within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It provides more flexibility in calculating partial outputs and clarifies rules to avoid double counting of values under result indicators, reducing the administrative burden on Member States.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160

This regulation addresses the economic fallout in Hungary’s fruit and vegetable sector due to severe frost in 2025. It allows Hungary to provide increased financial assistance to producer organizations by temporarily raising the limit of Union financial assistance for operational programs to 70% for 2025, while ensuring that overcompensation is avoided.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, streamlining the integrated administration and control system in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It merges three quality assessments into one, adjusts reporting requirements for Member States, and removes the obligation for farmers to provide information on the use of plant protection products in the geo-spatial application, aiming to simplify administrative processes.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130, simplifying the content of the annual performance report under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The changes include removing the requirement to report on derogations from GAEC standards and eliminating information solely needed for the annual performance clearance procedure, as it has been discontinued from the 2025 financial year onwards.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 to adjust the content requirements for CAP Strategic Plans, reflecting changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649.
The regulation focuses on Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards, definitions related to permanent grassland, and the introduction of a new type of intervention for crisis payments to farmers.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180

This regulation is an administrative change, amending eleven previous Implementing Regulations to reflect the change of name of the authorisation holder from DSM Nutritional Products Ltd. to Novozymes A/S for several feed additives.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130

This regulation mandates the registration of imports of new pneumatic tyres made of rubber, used for motor cars, buses, or lorries, originating from China. This action is a preliminary step that allows for the potential retroactive imposition of countervailing duties if the ongoing anti-subsidy investigation determines that such duties are warranted.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159

This regulation introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 concerning the fruit and vegetables sector.
This derogation is specifically aimed at addressing problems caused by severe frost events in April and May 2025, which significantly damaged fruit production in Hungary.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128, focusing on the annual performance clearance, multi-annual performance monitoring, and scrutiny of transactions within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The amendments streamline processes for Member States, remove ambiguities, provide greater flexibility in transaction scrutiny, and reduce administrative burdens.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/173

This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 regarding maximum residue levels (MRLs) of certain pesticides in or on food products.
It specifically addresses benfluralin, benthiavalicarb, and penflufen, updating the residue definitions for benthiavalicarb and setting new MRLs for all three substances based on the limit of determination (LOD).

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/140

This regulation amends Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 regarding maximum residue levels (MRLs) for certain pesticides in or on specific products.
The regulation adjusts the permissible levels of acequinocyl, chlormequat, metalaxyl-M, pyraclostrobin, sulfoxaflor, and trifloxystrobin in various food and feed items.

Regulation (EU) 2026/211

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2021/1755 concerning the Brexit Adjustment Reserve. The key aim is to reduce the maximum resources allocated to the Reserve due to new geopolitical and economic challenges. This adjustment ensures that funds can be redirected to address urgent Union priorities.

CJEU Case C-529/22

The CJEU clarifies when a parent company can be considered to be relying on the capacities of its subsidiary and whether the failure to submit the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) of a subsidiary should lead to exclusion from the tendering procedure.

CJEU Case C-402/22

The CJEU clarifies that national legislation cannot require services provided by independent groups to be “exclusively” linked to an exempt activity to qualify for VAT exemption, as long as the services are “directly necessary” for that activity.

CJEU Case C-520/21

The CJEU provides guidance to national courts on how to interpret and apply national law in a way that is consistent with EU consumer protection law, ensuring a fair balance between the rights of consumers and sellers or suppliers.

CJEU Case C-647/22

The CJEU reinforces the principles of equal treatment and aggregation of periods as enshrined in Regulation No 883/2004, regarding social security systems. The CJEU’s interpretation clarifies that national legislation cannot impose stricter conditions on workers who have contributed to social security systems in multiple Member States.

CJEU Case C-498/21

The CJEU interprets Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA to mean that if the executing state doubts the effectiveness of the information provided to the penalized individual regarding their right to contest the penalty, it *must* consult with the issuing state to determine if the possibility to contest still exists.

CJEU Case C-839/22

The Court confirms that Bulgaria failed to transpose Directive 2018/2001 by the deadline and did not adequately communicate transposition measures to the Commission. The Court imposes a lump sum payment of EUR 1,500,000 and a daily penalty payment of EUR 9,000, applicable if Bulgaria has not fully transposed the Directive by the date of the judgment.

CJEU Case C-15/23

This judgment clarifies the scope and application of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive concerning the supervision of insurance undertakings operating across borders within the EU.

CJEU Case C-373/22

CJEU ruled that the charge for mandatory use of vessel traffic services system should be calculated with regard to the cost of the services provided.

CJEU Case C-39/23

CJEU ruled that Hungary’s additional mining fee, violates Article 49 TFEU.

CJEU Case C-148/23

The CJEU interprets that legislation and how it complies with the principles of legal certainty, legality, and proportionality.

CJEU Case C-518/22 P

The Court upholds the General Court’s interpretation that the daily penalty payment was intended to ensure compliance with both the interim measures and the final decision, thus guaranteeing the effective application of EU law.

CJEU Case C-232/23

The Court clarified that the EU legislation does not prevent member states from setting revenue caps lower than the EU-wide cap, provided that the national measures are proportionate, non-discriminatory, and do not jeopardize investment signals or distort the functioning of electricity markets.

EFTA Court Case E-6/23

Masserud Utvikling AS is challenging the ESA’s decision that the company received unlawful state aid from Lørenskog municipality in Norway, by failing to enforce a claim for payment for the sale of property.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 166/24/COL

This decision ensures that these guidelines, initially set to expire, will remain in effect until December 31, 2026.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 308/2024/COL

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections to this aid. The aid was granted to Drøbak Frogn Idrettsarena KF, located in Akershus County, and aims to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of an EFTA State.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/118 of 7 November 2025 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills, for practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and for medical fitness and repealing Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12

Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/118:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation establishes harmonized standards for the certification of qualifications for individuals operating vessels on EU inland waterways. It outlines specific requirements for competences, knowledge, skills, practical examinations, simulator approvals, and medical fitness. This regulation aims to ensure safety, facilitate mobility, and protect human life and the environment in the inland navigation sector. It repeals and replaces Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 to incorporate updated standards.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured around supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397, which deals with the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation. The core of the regulation is in its annexes:

* **Annex I:** Details the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills required for both the operational and management levels. It covers areas like navigation, craft operation, cargo handling, marine engineering, communication, health, safety, and environmental protection.
* **Annex II:** Sets out the standards for practical examinations needed to demonstrate competence, including specific requirements for radar navigation, passenger navigation experts, and LNG experts.
* **Annex III:** Defines the technical and functional requirements for inland navigation vessel handling and radar simulators, along with the administrative procedures for their approval.
* **Annex IV:** Specifies the medical fitness standards for personnel, covering general fitness, vision, and hearing.

Compared to the repealed Directive (EU) 2020/12, this regulation incorporates the updated European Standard for Qualifications in Inland Navigation 2024/1 (ES-QIN 2024/1). These new standards include provisions for strengthening competences at the management level for navigation near sea-going ships, references to the European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels and the European Standard for River Information Services, as well as terminological and editorial clarifications.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Competence Standards (Annex I):** This section is crucial for training providers and individuals seeking certification. It clearly defines the skills and knowledge needed for different roles on inland waterway vessels.
* **Practical Examination Standards (Annex II):** This section is important for authorities conducting examinations and for candidates preparing for them. It specifies the competences to be assessed and the technical requirements for the examination environment.
* **Simulator Standards (Annex III):** This section is relevant for simulator manufacturers, training centers using simulators, and authorities approving them. It ensures that simulators used for training and assessment meet specific technical and functional criteria.
* **Medical Fitness Standards (Annex IV):** This section is essential for medical examiners and individuals working on inland waterways. It outlines the medical conditions that could affect a person’s ability to perform their duties safely.

This regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States from 1 January 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/152 of 22 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as regards certain plants for planting of Berberis thunbergii originating in the United Kingdom, and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 as regards the phytosanitary measures for the introduction of those plants for planting into the Union territory and correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 as regards certain plants for planting of Alnus cordata, Alnus glutinosa and Alnus incana originating in the United Kingdom

This regulation amends two existing regulations, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213, concerning phytosanitary measures for plants. It adjusts the rules for importing certain plants for planting, specifically Berberis thunbergii from the United Kingdom, and corrects some errors related to Alnus species and Cornus species. The goal is to ensure that the introduction of these plants into the Union territory does not pose unacceptable phytosanitary risks.

The regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 and Annex I amend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 by removing certain Berberis thunbergii plants from the list of high-risk plants. Article 2 and Annex II amend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 by specifying phytosanitary measures for Berberis thunbergii from the UK, correcting an error in the listing of Alnus species, and reordering the entry for Cornus species to ensure alphabetical order. Article 3 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The main provisions of the act are:
1. **Berberis thunbergii from the UK**: Removes certain Berberis thunbergii plants (up to 3-year-old bare-rooted and up to 4-year-old in growing medium, both with a maximum stem diameter of 40 mm) from the list of high-risk plants under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019, provided they meet specific phytosanitary conditions.
2. **Phytosanitary Measures**: Introduces specific phytosanitary measures for the import of these Berberis thunbergii plants from the UK, including requirements for the plants to be free from Phytophthora kernoviae, site inspections, tool disinfection, and official inspections prior to export.
3. **Correction for Alnus species**: Corrects an error in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 related to Alnus cordata, Alnus glutinosa, and Alnus incana, specifying that the measures apply only to up to 2-year-old graftwood (max 12 mm diameter) and up to 7-year-old plants (max 40 mm stem diameter).
4. **Reordering of Cornus species**: Corrects the alphabetical order of entries in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 by moving the entry for Cornus alba and Cornus sanguinea to its correct position.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/141 of 22 January 2026 cancelling the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product Nordkalk CL 90-Q in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1482

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/141 cancels the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘Nordkalk CL 90-Q’, previously granted to Nordkalk AS. The cancellation was requested by Nordkalk AS due to its decision to discontinue the product’s production for commercial reasons. The Regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1482, which had granted the initial authorisation. It establishes a period of grace for the making available on the market and use of existing stocks of ‘Nordkalk CL 90-Q’.

The Regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the cancellation and four articles. Article 1 cancels the Union authorisation for ‘Nordkalk CL 90-Q’. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1482. Article 3 sets deadlines for the withdrawal of the product from the market and the cessation of its use. Article 4 specifies the date of entry into force of the Regulation. The main change is the cancellation of the authorisation granted by the previous regulation.

The most important provision is Article 3, which sets the deadlines for the making available on the market and the use of existing stocks of the biocidal product ‘Nordkalk CL 90-Q’. Specifically, the product can no longer be made available on the market after 12 August 2026, and existing stocks must not be used after 12 February 2027. This provides a transitional period for those who currently possess or use the product to adjust to its absence from the market.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/142 of 22 January 2026 making imports of robot lawn mowers originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration with a view to allowing the levy of anti-dumping duties on the imports subject to registration

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/142 mandates the registration of imports of robot lawn mowers originating from the People’s Republic of China. The purpose of this registration is to enable the retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties on these imports, should the ongoing investigation determine that such duties are warranted. The regulation is triggered by an anti-dumping proceeding initiated in response to a complaint from a Union producer, alleging dumping practices. The registration will be in effect for nine months.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration and two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of electric robot lawn mowers, specifying the product’s characteristics and relevant CN and TARIC codes. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that the registration will expire nine months after the entry into force.

The most important provision is Article 1, which instructs customs authorities to register imports of robot lawn mowers from China. This means that importers of these products must ensure that their imports are properly documented and registered with the customs authorities. This registration is a prerequisite for the potential retroactive application of anti-dumping duties, which could significantly impact the financial implications of these imports.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290 as regards planning and reporting of outputs under output indicators and double counting of values under result indicators

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290, focusing on the planning and reporting of outputs under output indicators and addressing the issue of double counting of values under result indicators within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans. The amendments aim to streamline reporting processes, provide more flexibility in calculating partial outputs, and clarify the rules for avoiding double counting, thereby reducing the administrative burden on Member States. The regulation responds to changes in the framework for the annual performance clearance and aims to ensure consistency between the planning and reporting of outputs.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290, modifying calculation methods for output indicators, reporting of advances, aggregated values, and rules related to additional national financing. It also addresses double counting of outputs and clarifies how outputs generated by partial or full payments should be calculated and reported. Article 2 specifies the entry into force of the regulation and the application dates for certain provisions, ensuring alignment with the agricultural financial year 2025 and subsequent years.

The key provisions of this regulation include revised calculation methods for output indicators, allowing for more flexible reporting of partial outputs and ensuring consistency with operational program planning. It also clarifies the reporting of aggregated values for specific output indicators, particularly concerning areas designated under various articles of related regulations. Furthermore, the regulation introduces rules to prevent double counting of outputs and clarifies the conditions under which double counting may be permitted for certain result indicators and interventions, aiming to simplify the reporting process for Member States.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160 of 21 January 2026 on temporary emergency measures for Hungary derogating from a provision of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council, to resolve specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector caused by severe adverse meteorological events

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160 addresses the economic fallout in Hungary’s fruit and vegetable sector due to severe frost in April and May 2025. The regulation allows Hungary to provide increased financial assistance to producer organizations affected by these events. This is achieved by temporarily increasing the limit of Union financial assistance for operational programs. The regulation aims to provide flexibility in the implementation of operational programs, enabling producer organizations to redirect funds to address the consequences of the adverse weather.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 introduces a temporary derogation from Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, increasing the limit of Union financial assistance to 70% of actual expenditure for the year 2025 for affected producer organizations in Hungary. It also mandates that Hungary avoid overcompensation by considering other support received from national, Union, or private schemes. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and application period of the regulation, which is from the date of publication until January 22, 2027.

The most important provision of this regulation is the temporary increase in the limit of Union financial assistance to 70% for operational programs implemented by affected producer organizations in Hungary. This allows these organizations to more effectively address the economic consequences of the severe frost and redirect funds to necessary interventions. The requirement to avoid overcompensation is also crucial to ensure that the support is targeted and does not lead to market distortions.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the common agricultural policy

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, which lays down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 regarding the integrated administration and control system in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The key changes include merging three quality assessments into one, adjusting the reporting requirements for Member States, and removing the obligation for farmers to provide information on the use of plant protection products in the geo-spatial application. These amendments aim to simplify administrative processes and reduce burdens on Member States and farmers.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, specifically:
* It replaces point (a) in Article 1 of the original regulation to reflect the merging of the quality assessments for the identification system for agricultural parcels, the geo-spatial application system, and the area monitoring system.
* It replaces Article 2 of the original regulation, outlining the requirements for the quality assessment report, including the form, content, and submission process. It also specifies how deficiencies are to be addressed and the conditions under which the Commission may request an action plan.
* It deletes point (f) from Article 8(3) of the original regulation, which removes the requirement for the geo-spatial application to include information on the use of plant protection products.
Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force and the date of application of the regulation.

The most important provisions of this act are those that change the quality assessment and reporting requirements for Member States and remove the obligation for farmers to report on the use of plant protection products in the geo-spatial application. The merging of the three quality assessments into one streamlines the evaluation process. The removal of the requirement to report on plant protection products aims to reduce the administrative burden on farmers, aligning with simplification efforts in the CAP.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130 as regards the information concerning derogations from certain GAEC standards and information reported for the purposes of the annual performance clearance procedure in the annual performance report

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130, focusing on the content of the annual performance report under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The changes remove the requirement to report on derogations from GAEC standards, as this information was already submitted for the 2023 financial year. Additionally, the Regulation eliminates information solely needed for the annual performance clearance procedure, which has been discontinued from the 2025 financial year onwards.

The Regulation modifies the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130. It removes section 1.4, which dealt with reporting on GAEC derogations. It replaces section 2, which concerns quantitative and qualitative information on deviations of values of result indicators from milestones. The revised section 2 now focuses on achieved values of result indicators, realised outputs (unit amounts), additional national financing, and aggregated values of output indicators. It also includes subsections on the use of financial instruments in rural development interventions and information on oilseeds, cotton, and transitional national aid. The amendments reflect changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649, which discontinued the annual performance clearance procedure.

The most important provisions for practical use are those related to the content and structure of the annual performance report. Member States need to ensure that their reports for the financial year 2025 and subsequent years comply with the revised requirements, particularly regarding the reporting of achieved values of result indicators, realised outputs, and the justifications for any shortfalls from milestones. The Regulation applies from the financial year 2025, ensuring alignment with the amended Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 as regards the content of the CAP Strategic Plans

This is an analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289, which lays down detailed rules on the presentation of the content of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) Strategic Plans. The new regulation adjusts the content requirements for these plans to reflect changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649, particularly regarding Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards, definitions related to permanent grassland, and the introduction of a new type of intervention for crisis payments to farmers. It aims to ensure that Member States’ CAP Strategic Plans contain all necessary information for the Commission to effectively assess and process plan amendments.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** stipulates that Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation.
* **Article 2** specifies the entry into force and application date of the regulation. It enters into force the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and applies from 1 January 2026.

The Annex details the specific amendments to Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289, focusing on the following key areas:

* **GAEC Standards 2 and 9:** Requires Member States to specify in their CAP Strategic Plans for which requirements of GAEC standards 2 and 9 they may provide payments for commitments.
* **Permanent Grassland Definition:** Requires Member States to provide information on decisions regarding the definition of permanent grassland in the CAP Strategic Plans, including the period during which an area is to be under continuous use to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage and the classification of land as arable land.
* **Crisis Payments to Farmers:** Amends Annex I to include information specific to the new type of intervention for crisis payments to farmers following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events.
* **Conditionality:** Removes the requirement to describe the simplified controls for conditionality requirements for small farmers in the CAP Strategic Plans.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important provisions for use are those that detail the new information requirements for Member States when drafting or amending their CAP Strategic Plans. Specifically:

* When providing payments for commitments complying with GAEC standards 2 and 9, Member States must clearly specify which requirements of these standards are being supported.
* Member States must include detailed information on their definition of permanent grassland, including any decisions to extend the period of continuous use for grasses or other herbaceous forage, or to retain the classification of land as arable land.
* When planning to use the new intervention for crisis payments to farmers, Member States must outline the methodology for calculating losses, the triggering factors for compensation, the losses coverage, and the measures to avoid overcompensation.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180 of 19 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2021/1426, (EU) 2024/221, (EU) 2023/1333, (EU) 2024/1058, (EU) 2023/1342, (EU) 2024/778, (EU) 2024/2177, (EU) 2019/805, (EU) 2020/163, (EU) 2021/1431 and (EU) 2025/161 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation for feed additives

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180 addresses a purely administrative change concerning the holder of authorisations for several feed additives. The regulation amends eleven previous Implementing Regulations to reflect the change of name of the authorisation holder from DSM Nutritional Products Ltd. (and its various representations) to Novozymes A/S. This change does not require a new safety assessment of the feed additives.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It amends eleven existing Implementing Regulations, specifically: (EU) 2021/1426, (EU) 2024/221, (EU) 2023/1333, (EU) 2024/1058, (EU) 2023/1342, (EU) 2024/778, (EU) 2024/2177, (EU) 2019/805, (EU) 2020/163, (EU) 2021/1431 and (EU) 2025/161. For each of these regulations, the amendment involves replacing the name of the authorisation holder in the title and in the relevant column of the Annex. A transitional measure allows for the continued use of products produced and labelled under the previous name until stocks are exhausted.

The most important provision is the name change itself, as it directly affects the marketing rights and legal responsibilities associated with the feed additives in question. The transitional measure is also relevant, as it provides clarity on the period during which products with the old labeling can still be legally sold and used.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130 of 21 January 2026 making imports of new pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, buses or lorries with a load index not exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130 mandates the registration of imports of new pneumatic tyres made of rubber, used for motor cars, buses, or lorries with a load index not exceeding 121, originating from the People’s Republic of China. This action is a preliminary step that allows for the potential retroactive imposition of countervailing duties if the ongoing anti-subsidy investigation determines that such duties are warranted. The regulation aims to protect Union producers from unfair competition due to alleged subsidization.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration and two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register the specified tyre imports from China and sets the registration period to expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will take effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce immediate duties but sets the stage for potential future duties based on the outcome of the anti-subsidy investigation.

The most important provision is Article 1, which instructs customs authorities to begin registering imports of the specified tyres from China. This registration is crucial because it enables the retroactive application of countervailing duties if the investigation concludes that Chinese tyre manufacturers have benefited from subsidies and that these subsidies have injured Union producers. The nine-month expiration of the registration period provides a window for the investigation to conclude and for any subsequent duties to be imposed.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159 of 21 January 2026 on temporary emergency measures for Hungary derogating from a provision of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891, to resolve specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector caused by severe adverse meteorological events

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159 introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 concerning the fruit and vegetables sector. This derogation is specifically aimed at addressing problems caused by severe frost events in April and May 2025, which significantly damaged fruit production in Hungary. The regulation aims to alleviate the economic impact on producer organizations affected by these meteorological events.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 provides a temporary derogation for the year 2025 from Article 11(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891. This allows producer organizations in Hungary, identified as affected by the severe frost, to sell products from non-member producers regardless of the economic value of that activity compared to the organization’s own marketed production. It also requires these producer organizations to prove to the Hungarian competent authority that they meet the conditions for this derogation. Article 2 states that the regulation comes into force upon publication and applies until January 22, 2027. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is a new regulation specifically addressing the 2025 frost damage in Hungary.

The most important provision is Article 1(1), which grants the temporary derogation. This allows affected producer organizations to maintain their operations despite the reduced production levels caused by the frost, by being able to sell products from non-members without being restricted by the usual economic value thresholds. This measure is crucial for the economic stability of these organizations and the fruit and vegetables sector in Hungary during the specified period.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128 as regards the annual performance clearance, the multi-annual performance monitoring and the scrutiny of transactions

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128, focusing on the annual performance clearance, multi-annual performance monitoring, and scrutiny of transactions within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The amendments aim to reflect changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649, particularly concerning the annual performance clearance, and to streamline processes for Member States. The regulation seeks to remove ambiguities, provide greater flexibility in transaction scrutiny, and reduce administrative burdens.

The regulation modifies several articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128. It replaces point (c) in Article 5(4) regarding performance reporting, replaces paragraph 5 in Article 7 regarding auditing of the performance reporting system, replaces Article 13(1) regarding monthly payments, amends Article 28 regarding the procedure for the submission of action plans, amends Article 33(1) regarding the clearance of accounts, deletes Article 36, replaces Article 46 regarding the selection of undertakings to be scrutinised, and replaces Annex II and Part 2.1 of Annex VI. These changes include clarifying deadlines for remedial actions, specifying the use of electronic templates for action plans, and adjusting the process for selecting undertakings for scrutiny based on risk analysis.

Key provisions include the clarification of implementation deadlines for remedial actions in action plans, emphasizing that these actions should be completed within two years of the Commission’s acceptance of the plan. The regulation also mandates the use of standardized templates in the SFC2021 system for creating action plans and sets the deadline for submitting progress reports on these plans in line with the annual performance report. Furthermore, it provides Member States with more flexibility in selecting undertakings for scrutiny, focusing on a comprehensive risk analysis to determine the necessary number of controls.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/147 of 22 January 2026 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benfluralin, benthiavalicarb and penflufen in or on certain products

This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 regarding maximum residue levels (MRLs) of certain pesticides in or on food products. It specifically addresses benfluralin, benthiavalicarb, and penflufen. The regulation updates the residue definitions for benthiavalicarb and sets new MRLs for all three substances based on the limit of determination (LOD).

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 establishes that Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were produced in the Union or imported into the Union before 12 August 2026. Article 3 indicates the date of entry into force and the date of application. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes II and V of the original regulation, including deleting columns for benfluralin, benthiavalicarb, and penflufen from Annex II, and adding new columns for these substances to Annex V with MRLs set at the LOD.

The most important provision is the setting of new MRLs at the LOD for benfluralin, benthiavalicarb and penflufen in Annex V, ensuring that the levels of these substances in food products are as low as reasonably achievable. Additionally, the change in the residue definition for benthiavalicarb for enforcement purposes is noteworthy.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/140 of 22 January 2026 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acequinocyl, chlormequat, metalaxyl-M, pyraclostrobin, sulfoxaflor and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products

This is a description of Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/140, which amends Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 regarding maximum residue levels (MRLs) for certain pesticides in or on specific products. The regulation adjusts the permissible levels of acequinocyl, chlormequat, metalaxyl-M, pyraclostrobin, sulfoxaflor, and trifloxystrobin in various food and feed items. These amendments are based on applications for modification of existing MRLs and import tolerances, evaluated by Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commission considered EFSA’s opinions and concluded that the data supported the proposed MRLs for most commodities, ensuring consumer safety while aligning with agricultural practices.

The structure of the act is straightforward: it consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex contains the actual amendments to Annexes II and III of the original Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Specifically, it replaces the columns for acequinocyl, metalaxyl-M, pyraclostrobin, sulfoxaflor, and trifloxystrobin in Annex II and the column for chlormequat in Part A of Annex III with updated MRLs for various products.

The most important provisions for practical use are the updated MRLs for the listed pesticides in various food products. These levels are legally binding and must be adhered to by producers and distributors within the EU. The regulation sets new MRLs for acequinocyl in strawberries, chlormequat in oats, metalaxyl-M in honey and other apiculture products, pyraclostrobin in sweet corn, sulfoxaflor in a variety of leafy vegetables and herbs, and trifloxystrobin in olives, celeries, artichokes, leeks, linseeds, seed spices, and herbal infusions.

Regulation (EU) 2026/211 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2026 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1755 as regards the amounts allocated to Member States under the Brexit Adjustment Reserve

Regulation (EU) 2026/211 amends Regulation (EU) 2021/1755 concerning the Brexit Adjustment Reserve. The key aim is to reduce the maximum resources allocated to the Reserve due to new geopolitical and economic challenges, specifically Russia’s war against Ukraine, the energy crisis, and rising inflation. This adjustment ensures that funds can be redirected to address urgent Union priorities while safeguarding resources already disbursed to Member States or transferred to the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 modifies specific provisions within Regulation (EU) 2021/1755, particularly Article 4(3) and Article 4a(1). These amendments stipulate that an amount of EUR 584,264,090, initially planned for payment in 2025, will not be disbursed and will be deducted from the Reserve’s overall budget. It also clarifies the deadline for Member States to request the transfer of funds to the Recovery and Resilience Facility, setting it to 1 March 2023. Article 2 establishes the entry into force of the regulation on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, ensuring its immediate and binding applicability across all Member States.

The most important provision is the reduction of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve by EUR 584,264,090, which was initially due to be paid in 2025. This change reflects a reallocation of funds to address more pressing and emergent needs within the Union. The regulation ensures that funds already received by Member States as pre-financing or transferred to the Recovery and Resilience Facility remain unaffected, thereby maintaining the stability and effectiveness of ongoing recovery and resilience efforts.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2026.LIPOR – Associação de Municípios para a Gestão Sustentável de Resíduos do Grande Porto and PreZero Portugal, S.A. v Semural Waste & Energy, S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts – Directive 2014/24/EU – Award of contracts – Article 2(1)(10) – Concept of ‘economic operator’ – Inclusion of a subsidiary wholly owned by the parent company – Article 63 – Reliance on the capacities of other entities of persons linked with that undertaking – Article 59(1) – Freedom to prove that the capacities of other entities have been made available – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/7 – Annex 1 and point C of Part II of Annex 2 – Submission of several European Single Procurement Documents (ESPD) – Purpose of the ESPD.Case C-812/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, specifically regarding the concept of “economic operator” and the reliance on the capacities of other entities in public procurement procedures. The case revolves around a dispute in Portugal concerning the award of a waste management contract. The CJEU clarifies when a parent company can be considered to be relying on the capacities of its subsidiary and whether the failure to submit the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) of a subsidiary should lead to exclusion from the tendering procedure.

The judgment addresses two main questions referred by the Supreme Administrative Court of Portugal. First, it clarifies whether a parent company using the facilities of a wholly-owned subsidiary constitutes “reliance on the capacities of other entities” under Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU. Second, it examines whether the failure to submit the ESPD for the wholly-owned subsidiary should automatically result in exclusion from the procurement procedure.

The CJEU interprets Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU to mean that a parent company does indeed rely on the capacities of other entities when it uses the capacities of a wholly-owned subsidiary for a public contract. The Court also rules that the omission of the subsidiary’s ESPD does not automatically lead to exclusion, as such an omission can be rectified if national law allows and if the principles of equal treatment and transparency are respected. This judgment emphasizes the importance of precise and complete knowledge of each economic operator’s situation for contracting authorities.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Agrupació de Neteja Sanitària, AIE v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC).References for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT – Services directly necessary for the exercise of the exempt activity – Risk of distortion of competition – Cleaning services in the healthcare and education sectors – National legislation requiring that the services be directly and exclusively linked to the exempt activity and necessary for the exercise of that activity.Case C-379/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC). The case revolves around whether certain cleaning services provided by independent groups to their members should be exempt from VAT. The referring court is seeking clarification on the conditions under which such services can be considered “directly necessary” for the exercise of an exempt activity and whether national rules imposing strict exclusivity requirements are compatible with EU law.

The judgment addresses two main questions related to the interpretation of Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive. First, it clarifies that national legislation cannot require services provided by independent groups to be “exclusively” linked to an exempt activity to qualify for VAT exemption, as long as the services are “directly necessary” for that activity. Second, it states that a distortion of competition cannot be presumed simply because the services provided by these groups could potentially be used for taxable activities as well.

The CJEU interprets Article 132(1)(f) by emphasizing that the services must be “directly necessary” for the exempt activity of the members of the independent group, but they do not need to be “exclusively” linked to that activity. The Court also clarifies that the condition of “not distorting competition” should not be interpreted in a way that imposes an irrebuttable presumption of distortion simply because the services could be used for both exempt and taxable activities. Member States can lay down rules for the correct and straightforward application of exemptions and to prevent abuse, but those rules should not define the content of the exemptions.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.RM and EM v Santander Bank Polska S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) – Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency and containing unfair terms – Effects of the finding that a contractual term is unfair – Void agreement – National case-law providing for two independent claims for restitution – Consumer action seeking repayment of monthly payments made under the agreement – Claim of the seller or supplier corresponding to the amount of the loan – Recovery – Right of the seller or supplier to raise a plea of set-off of its claim against that of the consumer – Rules on the award of costs – Dissuasive effect of the prohibition on unfair terms – Principle of effectiveness – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law.Case C-902/24.

This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC). The case originates from a dispute in Poland between consumers (RM and EM) and a bank (Santander Bank Polska S.A.) regarding a mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency (Swiss francs). The Polish court seeks clarification on whether certain national law interpretations are compatible with EU law, specifically concerning the bank’s ability to claim set-off against the consumer’s claim for repayment of loan installments after the loan agreement has been declared void due to unfair terms.

The judgment addresses the interplay between EU consumer protection law and national procedural rules, particularly in the context of mortgage loan agreements containing unfair terms. The structure of the judgment includes an overview of the legal context (EU and Polish law), a description of the dispute in the main proceedings, the questions referred by the Polish court, the jurisdiction and admissibility of the request, and finally, the Court’s analysis and answer to the questions. The judgment clarifies the extent to which national courts can allow a seller or supplier to raise a plea of set-off against a consumer’s claim for reimbursement of payments made under a loan agreement declared invalid due to unfair terms. It balances the need to protect consumers from unfair contract terms with the seller’s or supplier’s right to effective judicial protection.

The most important provisions of the act are those that clarify the conditions under which a seller or supplier can raise a plea of set-off against a consumer’s claim after a contract has been declared invalid due to unfair terms. The CJEU ruled that EU law does not preclude such a plea, provided that the seller’s or supplier’s claim is not considered due before the court finds the agreement invalid and that the allocation of legal costs does not deter consumers from exercising their rights under the Directive. This ruling provides guidance to national courts on how to interpret and apply national law in a way that is consistent with EU consumer protection law, ensuring a fair balance between the rights of consumers and sellers or suppliers.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.F.F. v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Migrant workers – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Equal treatment – Aggregation of periods – Article 58 – Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons – Invalidity benefits – Supplement in order to guarantee receipt of the statutory minimum invalidity benefit – Stricter conditions relating to the contribution period for workers who have exercised their right to freedom of movement.Case C-633/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, specifically concerning invalidity benefits and the aggregation of periods of insurance. The case questions whether national legislation can impose stricter conditions for receiving a minimum invalidity benefit supplement on workers who have contributed to social security systems in multiple EU member states compared to those who have contributed only in one member state. The CJEU clarifies the principles of equal treatment and aggregation of periods, ensuring that migrant workers are not disadvantaged in accessing social security benefits.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant articles of Regulation No 883/2004.
2. **Legal Context:** Details the relevant EU and national laws, including the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland (AFMP), Regulation No 883/2004, and various Italian laws concerning invalidity pensions and social security.
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings:** Summarizes the facts of the case, the questions raised by the national court (Corte suprema di cassazione), and the procedural history.
4. **Consideration of the Question Referred:** Addresses the admissibility of the question and provides an interpretation of Article 58 of Regulation No 883/2004 in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6.
5. **Costs:** States that the national court is responsible for the decision on costs.

The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are:

* **Clarification of Equal Treatment and Aggregation of Periods:** The judgment reinforces the principles of equal treatment and aggregation of periods as enshrined in Regulation No 883/2004. It clarifies that Member States cannot impose stricter conditions for accessing social security benefits, such as the minimum invalidity benefit supplement, on workers who have exercised their right to freedom of movement and contributed to social security systems in other Member States.
* **Application to the EU-Switzerland Agreement:** The judgment confirms that Regulation No 883/2004 applies to situations involving EU Member States and Switzerland, treating Switzerland as a Member State for the purposes of the regulation.
* **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The judgment refers to and builds upon previous case law of the CJEU regarding freedom of movement, social security, and the rights of migrant workers.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are:

* **Article 58 of Regulation No 883/2004:** This article is central to the judgment, as it addresses the award of supplements to ensure that recipients of benefits receive at least the minimum benefit fixed by the Member State of residence.
* **Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 883/2004:** These articles, concerning equality of treatment and aggregation of periods, respectively, are crucial for interpreting Article 58 and ensuring that migrant workers are not disadvantaged.
* **The interpretation provided by the CJEU:** The CJEU’s interpretation clarifies that national legislation cannot impose stricter conditions on workers who have contributed to social security systems in multiple Member States, ensuring that contribution periods in other Member States are taken into account as if they were completed in the Member State of the competent institution.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v BC.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Mutual recognition of financial penalties – Article 7(2)(g) – Ground for non-recognition and non-execution – Informing the person concerned of his or her right to contest the case and of the time limits of such a legal remedy – Article 7(3) – Obligation to consult the competent authority of the issuing Member State.Case C-453/24.

This document is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the mutual recognition of financial penalties. The case originates from Bulgaria and involves a request for the recognition and execution of a financial penalty issued in Austria against a Bulgarian national for a road toll violation. The core issue revolves around whether the person penalized was properly informed of their right to contest the penalty.

The judgment clarifies the obligations of the executing state (Bulgaria in this case) when there are doubts about whether the penalized individual was correctly informed of their right to contest the financial penalty in the issuing state (Austria). It addresses whether the executing state can consult the issuing state to verify if the right to contest still exists, and if so, whether the executing state can then inform the individual and suspend the enforcement procedure pending the outcome of any appeal.

The CJEU interprets Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA to mean that if the executing state doubts the effectiveness of the information provided to the penalized individual regarding their right to contest the penalty, it *must* consult with the issuing state to determine if the possibility to contest still exists. However, the CJEU also states that the executing state *cannot* directly inform the individual of their right to contest or suspend the enforcement procedure. Instead, the executing state must terminate the procedure. A new enforcement procedure can only begin if the penalty becomes final after the individual has either contested the penalty and lost, or the time limit for contesting has expired.

The most important provision is the clarification of the executing state’s duty to consult with the issuing state when there are doubts about the individual’s awareness of their right to contest the penalty. This ensures the protection of fundamental rights, specifically the right to effective judicial protection. However, the judgment also makes it clear that the executing state’s role is limited to verifying the finality of the decision and cannot take on the responsibilities of the issuing state in ensuring proper notification and opportunity for appeal.

Arrêt de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 22 janvier 2026.#Commission européenne contre République de Bulgarie.#Manquement d’État – Article 258 TFUE – Environnement – Directive (UE) 2018/2001 – Énergie produite à partir de sources renouvelables – Absence de transposition et de communication des mesures de transposition – Article 260, paragraphe 3, TFUE – Sanctions pécuniaires – Demande de condamnation au paiement d’une somme forfaitaire et d’une astreinte.#Affaire C-206/23.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a failure by Bulgaria to transpose Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources into its national law. The European Commission brought the case against Bulgaria for not adopting and communicating the necessary measures to comply with the Directive by the deadline. The Court found Bulgaria in breach of its obligations and imposed financial penalties.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** The Commission’s claim that Bulgaria failed to transpose Directive 2018/2001, seeking a lump sum payment and a daily penalty.
2. **Legal Framework:** Details the relevant articles of Directive 2018/2001, particularly Article 36 concerning the transposition deadline (June 30, 2021) and the obligation to inform the Commission of the measures taken. It also references the Commission’s communication on financial sanctions for infringement procedures.
3. **Pre-litigation Procedure and Procedure Before the Court:** Outlines the exchange between the Commission and Bulgaria, including letters of formal notice, reasoned opinions, and Bulgaria’s explanations for the delay (COVID-19 pandemic, multiple elections).
4. **The Claim:**
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Details the Commission’s arguments that Bulgaria failed to transpose the Directive and Bulgaria’s defense based on force majeure (COVID-19 and political instability).
* **Assessment of the Court:** The Court rejects Bulgaria’s force majeure defense, finding that the pandemic and political situation did not make it impossible to transpose the Directive. The Court concludes that Bulgaria failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 36 of Directive 2018/2001.
5. **Request for Imposition of a Lump Sum and a Penalty Payment Under Article 260(3) TFEU:**
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Details the Commission’s methodology for calculating the lump sum and penalty payment based on the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as Bulgaria’s ability to pay. Bulgaria contests the amounts, arguing they are disproportionate and that the delay was not due to negligence.
* **Assessment of the Court:** The Court upholds the imposition of a lump sum and a daily penalty payment. It adjusts the amounts proposed by the Commission, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the partial transposition of the Directive and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
6. **Costs:** Bulgaria is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act are:

* **Finding of Failure:** The Court confirms that Bulgaria failed to transpose Directive 2018/2001 by the deadline and did not adequately communicate transposition measures to the Commission.
* **Financial Penalties:** The Court imposes a lump sum payment of EUR 1,500,000. It also imposes a daily penalty payment of EUR 9,000, applicable if Bulgaria has not fully transposed the Directive by the date of the judgment.
* **Rejection of Force Majeure:** The Court rejects Bulgaria’s arguments that the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability constituted force majeure that prevented it from meeting its obligations.
* **Partial Transposition:** The Court acknowledges that Bulgaria had partially transposed the Directive, which influenced the final amount of the financial penalties.
* **Application of Article 260(3) TFEU:** The Court confirms the applicability of Article 260(3) TFEU, which allows the Commission to seek financial penalties against Member States that fail to communicate transposition measures for directives adopted under a legislative procedure.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s. v Česká národní banka.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services – Single insurance market – Directive 2009/138/EC – Principle of supervision by the home Member State – Article 155 – Competencies of the supervisory authorities of the host Member State – Cooperation with the authorities of the home Member State – Insurance undertaking not complying with the legal provisions applicable in the host Member State – Provisions concerned – Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 – Packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) – Directive (EU) 2016/97 – Insurance distribution – Powers of the supervisory authorities of the host Member State to penalise the undertaking concerned – Scope.Case C-18/24.

This judgment clarifies the scope and application of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive concerning the supervision of insurance undertakings operating across borders within the EU. The case originated from a dispute between NOVIS, an insurance company established in Slovakia, and the Czech National Bank (ČNB) regarding a fine imposed on NOVIS for failing to comply with regulations in the Czech Republic.

The judgment addresses two key questions: (1) Does Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive apply to situations where a host Member State’s supervisory authority finds that an insurance undertaking is not complying with obligations under Regulation No. 1286/2014 (PRIIPs) or Directive 2016/97 (Insurance Distribution)? (2) If so, does Article 155 require the host Member State’s supervisory authority to exhaust the notification and remedial procedures outlined in paragraphs 1-3 before imposing penalties under paragraphs 5 and 6?

The Court of Justice ruled that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive does indeed apply to situations where a host Member State’s supervisory authority finds that an insurance undertaking is not complying with obligations under Regulation No. 1286/2014 or Directive 2016/97. However, the Court also clarified that the supervisory authorities of the host Member State are not required to comply with the procedure laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 155 when they impose penalties on an insurance undertaking pursuing business in the territory of that Member State either through a branch or under the freedom to provide services, provided that the penalties imposed by that State on that insurance undertaking are not intended to penalise non-compliance with the conditions of authorisation and that those penalties have neither the purpose nor the effect of depriving that insurance undertaking of its right to pursue business in the territory of that Member State.

The most important aspect of this judgment is the clarification that host Member States can directly penalize insurance companies for infringements within their territory without first exhausting the cooperation procedure outlined in Article 155(1)-(3), as long as the penalties do not relate to the undertaking’s authorization or effectively prevent it from doing business in the host Member State. This ruling balances the principle of home Member State supervision with the need for effective enforcement of regulations in host Member States to protect consumers and maintain market stability.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Vlaams Gewest v P&O North Sea Ferries Limited and P&O Ferries Limited.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 – Application of the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries – Article 56 TFEU – Article 191 of 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 – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation providing for the payment of a charge for the mandatory use of a vessel traffic services system (‘Verkeersbegeleidingssysteem’), depending on the length of the vessel concerned – Legislation applying to maritime traffic that is bound for ports of Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region (Belgium)) covered by that system and that departs from a port of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium, but not applying to the traffic between those Flemish ports – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (Brexit).Case C-413/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of EU law on the freedom to provide maritime transport services, specifically in the context of a charge levied for the mandatory use of a vessel traffic services system (VTS) in the Flemish Region of Belgium. The case involves P&O Ferries, who are contesting the legality of this charge. The judgment clarifies whether such a charge, which applies to vessels traveling to Flemish ports from other Member States but not to traffic between Flemish ports, is compatible with EU law. It also addresses whether service providers established in the United Kingdom can invoke EU law after Brexit, under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

The judgment is structured around three questions referred by a Belgian court. First, it examines whether the VTS charge, as applied by the Flemish Region, constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services under Regulation No 4055/86 and Article 56 TFEU. Second, it assesses whether a uniform VTS tariff based solely on the length of the vessel is contrary to the freedom to provide services, considering that it does not account for specific navigational challenges of different ports. Third, it determines whether Article 191 of the TCA allows UK-based service providers to invoke EU law after Brexit.

The CJEU ruled that the VTS charge is incompatible with EU law if there isn’t a correlation between the cost of the services provided and the amount of the charge. The Court found that the national legislation, by imposing a charge solely on vessels sailing between a port situated in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium and a Flemish port, provides for a difference in treatment depending on whether or not the route taken by the vessel concerned is domestic. The Court also clarified that after Brexit, service providers established in the UK cannot rely on EU law before national courts of Member States for facts or legal situations arising after December 31, 2020, based on the interpretation of the TCA and the Withdrawal Agreement.

The most important provision of this act is that the charge for mandatory use of vessel traffic services system should be calculated with regard to the cost of the services provided.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.European Commission v Hungary.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of establishment – National legislation establishing reference prices for certain basic construction materials below market prices – Obligation to pay an ‘additional mining fee’ corresponding to 90% of the difference between the reference price and the selling price – Measure mainly affecting undertakings held by companies established in other Member States – No justification – Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services – Directive (EU) 2015/1535 – Article 1(1)(d) – Concept of ‘other requirements’.Case C-144/24.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding Hungary’s failure to fulfill its obligations under EU law. The European Commission brought the action against Hungary, alleging that certain Hungarian regulations related to mining fees and extraction volumes violated the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the procedure for providing information in the field of technical regulations according to Directive (EU) 2015/1535. The Court partially upheld the Commission’s action, finding that the additional mining fee imposed by Hungary was indeed a violation of Article 49 TFEU.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the legal context, including relevant articles of the TFEU and Directive 2015/1535, followed by a description of the Hungarian laws in question—specifically, Government Decrees No. 404/2021 and No. 405/2021, as well as amendments to Law No. XLVIII of 1993 on mining. The judgment then details the pre-litigation procedure, the arguments presented by both the Commission and Hungary, and the Court’s findings. The Court analyzes each of the Commission’s complaints, addressing whether the Hungarian measures restrict freedom of establishment and whether any such restrictions are justified. Ultimately, the Court rules that the additional mining fee constitutes an unjustified restriction on freedom of establishment, while dismissing the remainder of the Commission’s claims.

The most important provision of the act is the Court’s declaration that Hungary’s additional mining fee, as outlined in Government Decree No. 404/2021, violates Article 49 TFEU. This is significant because it means that Hungary imposed a financial burden that unfairly targeted companies established in other EU Member States, hindering their ability to operate and compete in the Hungarian market. The Court found that the fee, which was calculated based on reference prices set below market value, disproportionately affected foreign-owned companies and could not be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement procedures – Directive 2014/23 – Award of concession contracts – Directive 2014/24 – Grounds for exclusion – National legislation establishing a register of public sector partners – Requirement of impartiality on the part of the person authorised to enter the public sector partner in that register – Imposition of a fine for non-compliance with that requirement – Automatic exclusion from participation in public procurement procedures in the event of non-payment of that fine – Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Criminal nature of the penalty – Predictability and proportionality of that penalty – Principle of legal certainty.Case C-590/24.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic. The case revolves around Slovak legislation on a register of public sector partners (RPSP) and its compatibility with EU law, specifically concerning public procurement procedures and fundamental rights. The judgment addresses the conditions under which fines can be imposed for non-compliance with impartiality requirements in registering public sector partners and the proportionality of such penalties.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the request and the relevant EU directives (2014/23 and 2014/24) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2. It then details the legal framework, including relevant articles from the Charter, Directives 2014/23 and 2014/24, and the specific Slovak laws in question, namely the Law on the RPSP and the Law on Public Procurement.
3. The judgment describes the dispute in the main proceedings, which involves fines imposed on a company (Mabonex Slovakia), its directors, and a legal entity (AK Dlhopolec) for an alleged infringement related to the impartiality of the authorized person registering Mabonex Slovakia in the RPSP.
4. It presents the six questions referred by the Slovak Supreme Court, which concern the compatibility of the Slovak legislation with EU law, particularly regarding the free movement of goods and services, public procurement rules, and the principles of legality, proportionality, and legal certainty in the context of penalties.
5. The Court then addresses its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the questions, finding that it does have jurisdiction and that some questions are admissible while others are not.
6. Finally, the Court provides answers to the admissible questions, interpreting the relevant EU law and offering guidance to the national court.

The most important provisions of the act are:
* **Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:** This article, concerning the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, is central to the Court’s analysis.
* **Directives 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU:** These directives on the award of concession contracts and public procurement, respectively, are relevant because the Slovak legislation in question affects the ability of economic operators to participate in public procurement procedures.
* **The Slovak Law on the RPSP:** This law establishes the register of public sector partners and sets out the requirements for registration, including the impartiality of the authorized person, as well as the penalties for non-compliance.
* **The Slovak Law on Public Procurement:** This law makes registration in the RPSP a condition for participating in public procurement procedures.

The Court’s analysis focuses on whether the Slovak legislation complies with the principles of legal certainty, legality, and proportionality, particularly in the context of imposing fines and excluding economic operators from public procurement procedures. The judgment provides guidance on how to interpret and apply these principles in the context of the specific Slovak legislation at issue.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Republic of Poland v European Commission.Appeal – Articles 259, 260 and 279 TFEU – Compliance by a Member State with an order of the Vice-President of the Court imposing interim measures – Obligation to pay a daily penalty until the order is complied with – Failure to take the necessary measures to comply with the order and to pay the periodic penalty – Removal of the case on the merits from the register – Recovery by way of set-off of debts arising from the non-payment of the periodic penalty – Action for annulment.Case C-554/24 P.

This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal by the Republic of Poland against a General Court judgment. The case concerns the recovery of a daily penalty imposed on Poland for failing to comply with an interim order to cease lignite mining activities at the Turów mine. The Commission recovered the penalty by way of set-off from funds owed to Poland. Poland challenged the Commission’s decisions, but the General Court dismissed the actions.

The judgment addresses Poland’s appeal against the General Court’s decision. The structure involves the Court examining the legal framework (TFEU articles 259, 260, 279, Statute of the Court of Justice, and Rules of Procedure), the background to the dispute (Czech Republic’s action against Poland regarding the Turów mine), the procedure before the General Court, and the forms of order sought by the parties. The core of the judgment is the Court’s analysis of Poland’s two grounds of appeal: (1) infringement of Article 279 TFEU (interim measures) and (2) infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (obligation to state reasons).

The most important provisions of the act are the Court’s findings regarding Article 279 TFEU. The Court upholds the General Court’s interpretation that the daily penalty payment was intended to ensure compliance with both the interim measures and the final decision, thus guaranteeing the effective application of EU law. The Court emphasizes that the ancillary nature of interim measures does not prevent them from having irreversible effects during their period of application. It also clarifies that the settlement agreement between the Czech Republic and Poland did not retroactively extinguish Poland’s obligation to pay the penalty for the period of non-compliance. Furthermore, the Court rejects the argument that the penalty was punitive, emphasizing its preventive nature aimed at ensuring compliance with EU law.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2026.Secab Soc. coop. v Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market for electricity – Directive (EU) 2019/944 – Article 5 – Market-based supply prices – Directive (EU) 2018/2001 – Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources – Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 – Emergency intervention to address high energy prices – Articles 6 and 7 – Cap on the market revenues obtained by electricity producers using certain renewable energy sources – Article 8 – National measures further limiting market revenues – Conditions – National legislation not guaranteeing that producers retain 10% of surplus revenues above the cap – Preservation of investments in the renewable energy sector – No cap on the revenues obtained from the sale of energy produced from hard coal – No legislation differentiating between different sources of production.Case C-423/23.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling from Italy. The case concerns the interpretation of EU law related to the internal electricity market and measures taken to address high energy prices, specifically focusing on revenue caps for electricity producers using renewable energy sources. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which EU directives and regulations limit the power of member states to set national rules capping revenues for renewable energy producers.

The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the context of the request, the relevant EU directives (2019/944 and 2018/2001), and the regulation addressing high energy prices (2022/1854).
* It identifies the specific articles and recitals in question, focusing on market-based supply prices, promotion of renewable energy, and emergency interventions in the energy market.
* It details the factual background of the Italian case, involving Secab Soc. coop., an electricity generation company, and the Italian regulatory authorities (ARERA and GSE).
* It presents the questions referred by the Italian court, which concern whether national rules setting a cap on market revenues from renewable energy sources are compatible with EU law, particularly regarding the guarantee of a minimum revenue percentage for producers, the preservation of investments in renewable energy, and the treatment of different energy sources.
* The CJEU then assesses the admissibility of the questions and proceeds to answer each one in turn, interpreting the relevant EU provisions and clarifying their implications for the national legislation in question.

The main provisions of the act are:
* **Article 5(4) of Directive 2019/944:** Concerns public interventions in price setting for electricity supply, primarily aimed at vulnerable customers.
* **Directives 2018/2001 (Recitals 2, 3, 12):** Focuses on promoting renewable energy sources and establishing financial frameworks to support investments in renewable energy projects.
* **Regulation 2022/1854 (Articles 6, 7, 8):** Addresses emergency measures to tackle high energy prices, including a cap on market revenues for electricity producers using certain energy sources. It also allows member states to implement additional national crisis measures under specific conditions.

The most important provisions for its use are the interpretations of Article 8 of Regulation 2022/1854, which allows Member States to implement additional national crisis measures under specific conditions. The Court clarified that the EU legislation does not prevent member states from setting revenue caps lower than the EU-wide cap, provided that the national measures are proportionate, non-discriminatory, and do not jeopardize investment signals or distort the functioning of electricity markets.

Action brought on 24 November 2025 by Masserud Utvikling AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-27/25)

This document is a notice of an action brought before the EFTA Court by Masserud Utvikling AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA). Masserud Utvikling AS is challenging the ESA’s decision that the company received unlawful state aid from Lørenskog municipality in Norway. The company requests the court to annul part of the ESA’s decision and order ESA to pay the company’s legal costs.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The document outlines the following key aspects:

* **Identification of Parties:** It identifies Masserud Utvikling AS as the applicant and the EFTA Surveillance Authority as the defendant.
* **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The core of the dispute revolves around the ESA’s decision that Lørenskog municipality granted unlawful state aid to Masserud by failing to enforce a claim for payment for the sale of property, which subsequently became time-barred.
* **Relief Sought:** Masserud seeks annulment of specific parts of the ESA’s decision (Article 2, and subsequently 3, 4, and 5) and demands that the ESA cover its legal expenses.
* **Legal and Factual Background:** It provides background information about Masserud Utvikling AS, Lørenskog municipality, and the contested decision. It explains that the ESA’s investigation was initiated following a complaint from Lørenskog municipality itself.
* **Pleas in Law:** Masserud presents several legal arguments to support its claim that the ESA’s decision is flawed. These include arguments that the ESA made a manifest error of assessment, the measure is not attributable to the state, the measure is not selective, the applicant did not obtain an advantage, and there is no effect on trade.

**Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this document are the pleas in law put forward by Masserud Utvikling AS. These arguments form the basis of their challenge to the ESA’s decision and highlight the key legal issues in dispute:

* **Error of Assessment:** Masserud argues that the ESA incorrectly interpreted Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by considering time-barred claims as state aid.
* **Attributability to the State:** Masserud contends that the measure (failure to enforce the claim) cannot be attributed to the state.
* **Selectivity:** Masserud argues that the measure is not selective, a necessary element for a finding of state aid.
* **Advantage:** Masserud claims that it did not gain an advantage simply because a claim became time-barred.
* **Effect on Trade:** Masserud asserts that the measure does not affect trade between EEA member states.

These pleas in law are crucial for understanding the legal arguments being presented before the EFTA Court and the potential implications of the case.

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 173/25/COL of 15 October 2025 amending the substantive rules in the field of State aid by extending the period of application provided for in the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty [2026/162]

This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision extends the applicability of the guidelines concerning state aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial companies that are facing difficulties. The decision ensures that these guidelines, initially set to expire, will remain in effect until December 31, 2026. This extension aligns the EFTA regulations with those of the European Commission, maintaining uniformity within the European Economic Area (EEA).

The decision consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the amendment, followed by a single article that directly modifies the existing guidelines. Specifically, Article 1 amends point 135 of ESA’s R&R Guidelines, changing the end date of application from the original date to December 31, 2026. This decision is a straightforward extension with no substantive changes to the guidelines themselves.

The most important provision of this act is the extended deadline for the application of the state aid guidelines. Companies and EFTA states need to be aware that the guidelines will remain in force until the end of 2026.

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a state aid measure implemented by Norway. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to this aid. The aid was granted to Drøbak Frogn Idrettsarena KF, located in Akershus County, and aims to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of an EFTA State.

The decision concerns ad hoc aid provided in the form of loss coverage, with a budget of NOK 6,120,000 and an intensity of 100%. The aid was in effect from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, and targeted the economic sector of fitness centers (S 93.13). The legal basis for the aid is the municipal act of 22 June 2018 No 83 and the decision of Frogn municipality of 16 February 2022.

The most important aspect of this decision is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s approval of the aid measure, indicating that it is compatible with state aid rules. This allows Norway to continue providing the aid without facing objections from the Authority. The decision provides transparency regarding the specific details of the aid, including the beneficiary, amount, duration, and legal basis.