Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/270
This regulation introduces provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 1,4-Butanediol (BDO) from China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. The European Commission launched an investigation following a complaint from a Union industry producer. The regulation establishes duty rates for specific companies and “all other companies” in each country. To benefit from the individual company rates, importers must present a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration. Customs authorities are instructed to discontinue the prior registration of these imports, and deadlines are set for interested parties to submit comments or request hearings.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/295
This regulation suspends the EU’s commercial rebalancing measures on certain goods originating in the United States and certain products exported from the EU to the United States. The suspension, initially introduced by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1727, is prolonged until August 6, 2026. Article 1 is the key provision, putting on hold additional customs duties and export restrictions that the EU had planned to apply.
Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/244
This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders (HPSC) originating in the People’s Republic of China and finalizes the collection of previously imposed provisional duties. It outlines specific duty rates for named companies and a general rate for all other imports from China. The regulation clarifies the product scope, including empty HPSC used in fire extinguishers but excluding filled ones. It details the methodology for determining the normal value of HPSC and assesses the injury suffered by the Union industry. The application of individual duty rates depends on presenting a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration. Member States are required to report monthly import numbers under relevant codes.
Review of Case T-394/24, Ján Škor v. European Commission
This judgment from the European Union Tribunal dismisses a claim for damages brought by Mr. Škor against the European Commission for alleged non-contractual liability due to the actions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Tribunal found the claim inadmissible because it was filed after the five-year statute of limitations had expired. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the statute of limitations in actions against the EU.
Review of Case related to the CompBioMed3 project
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the rejection of a grant proposal under the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The Court dismissed the action, upholding the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking’s decision to reject the grant proposal and the subsequent rejection of the request for review.The Court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the proposal. The court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had not applied award criteria that were not provided for in the call for proposals.
Review of Case regarding an EU trade mark dispute
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by RGCC Holdings AG for the EU figurative mark “WelMedis” and an opposition filed by Médis – Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, S. A., based on their earlier international registration for the figurative mark “médis”. The court ultimately ruled in favor of RGCC Holdings AG, finding no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
Review of Case T-127/21 RENV, Swissgrid AG v European Commission
This judgment from the General Court annuls the European Commission’s decision to deny the Swiss Confederation’s participation in European balancing platforms, specifically the Trans European Replacement Reserves Exchange (TERRE) platform. The court found that the decision was made by a director of DG Energy, who lacked the authority to do so, violating the principle of collegiality, which requires decisions of principle to be deliberated upon by the College of Commissioners.
Review of Notice regarding Agreement between the EU and Armenia
This notice announces the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia, establishing a framework for Armenia’s participation in EU crisis management operations. The agreement entered into force on January 1, 2026. The most important provision highlighted by this notice is Article 17(1) of the Agreement, which specifies that the agreement comes into force only after both parties have completed their internal procedures and notified each other.
Review of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision regarding Audiovisual Media Services Directive
This decision concludes that the Norwegian measures, which aim to ensure broad public access to events of major importance for society, are indeed compatible with EEA law. These measures include listing specific events that must be broadcast on free-to-air television. The most important provision is Article 1, which declares that Norway’s intended measures are compatible with EEA law.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/270 of 4 February 2026 imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 1,4-Butanediol originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America
Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/270:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation imposes provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 1,4-Butanediol (BDO) originating from China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. The European Commission initiated an investigation following a complaint by a Union industry producer, finding sufficient evidence of dumping and material injury. The regulation establishes provisional duties to protect Union industry from unfair competition, pending further investigation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured as follows:
* **Procedure:** Details the initiation of the investigation, registration of imports, identification of interested parties, and sampling methods used.
* **Product Definition:** Defines the product under investigation (BDO), the product concerned (BDO from specific countries), and the like product (BDO produced in the Union). It also addresses claims to exclude bio-based BDO from the product scope, ultimately rejecting them.
* **Dumping:** Explains the methodology for determining normal value and export prices for each country, including adjustments made for fair comparison. For China, it outlines the use of a representative country (Brazil) due to significant distortions in the Chinese economy.
* **Injury:** Assesses the injury suffered by the Union industry, considering factors like consumption, import volumes, prices, and various economic indicators.
* **Causation:** Examines the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry, considering other potential factors.
* **Level of Measures:** Determines the level of anti-dumping duties needed to remove the injury, based on a target profit for the Union industry.
* **Union Interest:** Assesses whether imposing measures is in the overall interest of the Union, considering the impact on the Union industry, importers, and users.
* **Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures:** Sets out the specific anti-dumping duty rates for each country and company.
* **Registration:** Refers to the prior registration of imports and states that no decision on retroactive application of duties can be taken at this stage.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Duty Rates:** The regulation specifies the provisional anti-dumping duty rates applicable to BDO imports from specific companies in China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA, as well as a rate for all other imports from those countries.
* **Invoice Requirement:** To benefit from individual company duty rates, importers must present a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
* **Registration Discontinuation:** Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports that was previously in place.
* **Interested Parties Rights:** The regulation outlines deadlines for interested parties to submit written comments or request hearings.
* **** This regulation may affect Ukrainian companies that import BDO from China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. They may need to pay anti-dumping duties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/295 of 4 February 2026 suspending commercial rebalancing measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America and certain products exported from the Union to the United States of America imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1564
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/295 suspends the commercial rebalancing measures previously imposed on certain products originating in the United States and certain products exported from the EU to the United States. These measures were initially established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1564 to counteract safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain steel, aluminum, vehicles, and other products from the Union. The suspension is based on a political agreement reached between the EU and the US, which included tariff relief for EU imports to the US. The regulation ensures the continued implementation of this political agreement by prolonging the suspension of the EU’s rebalancing measures.
The structure of the act is simple. It consists of a preamble that outlines the reasons for the regulation, followed by two articles. Article 1 suspends the application of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1564. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force and the period of application, which is from February 7, 2026, to August 6, 2026. This regulation prolongs the suspension which was initially introduced by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1727.
The most important provision is Article 1, which effectively puts on hold the additional customs duties and export restrictions that the EU had planned to apply. This means that businesses involved in trade between the EU and the US will not be subject to these rebalancing measures during the period of suspension. The Commission retains the right to review the suspension based on developments in trade relations with the United States and may take further actions if necessary.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/244 of 3 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in People’s Republic of China
This is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/244, which imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders (HPSC) originating in the People’s Republic of China. This regulation also finalizes the collection of provisional duties that were previously imposed. The decision comes after an anti-dumping investigation initiated in December 2024, following a complaint by Union producers, who alleged that these imports were being dumped on the EU market, causing material injury to the Union industry.
The regulation is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the procedure, including the initiation of the investigation, registration of imports, and imposition of provisional measures. It then defines the product concerned and the like product, addressing claims regarding the product scope, such as the inclusion of accumulator shells and empty fire extinguishers. The regulation details the dumping analysis, including the existence of significant distortions in the Chinese steel sector, the methodology for determining normal value, and the calculation of dumping margins. It further assesses the injury to the Union industry, examining Union consumption, import volumes and prices, and the economic situation of Union producers. The regulation then establishes a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry. Finally, it determines the level of measures, considering the margin adequate to remove the injury and the Union interest, before imposing definitive anti-dumping duties.
Key provisions of the regulation include:
– **Imposition of Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties:** Anti-dumping duties are imposed on HPSC imports from China, with specific rates for named companies and a general rate for all other imports from China.
– **Product Scope Clarification:** The regulation clarifies the scope of the investigation, specifically addressing the inclusion of empty HPSC used in fire extinguishers and excluding filled fire extinguishers. It also addresses the treatment of HPSC imported as components of other goods.
– **Rejection of Claims for Exclusion:** Claims to exclude accumulator shells and empty fire extinguishers from the product scope were rejected, ensuring a comprehensive application of the duties.
– **Methodology for Normal Value Determination:** The regulation details the methodology for determining the normal value of HPSC, including the selection of a representative country (Türkiye) and the calculation of labor costs and benchmarks for steel tubes.
– **Injury Assessment:** The regulation provides a detailed assessment of the injury suffered by the Union industry, considering factors such as Union consumption, import volumes and prices, and the economic indicators of Union producers.
– **Causation Analysis:** The regulation establishes a causal link between the dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry, rejecting arguments that other factors were the primary cause of the injury.
– **Level of Measures:** The regulation determines the level of anti-dumping duties, considering the margin adequate to remove the injury and the Union interest, and concludes that the full dumping margin should be applied.
– **Union Interest:** The regulation assesses the Union interest, considering the impact of the measures on users, consumers, and suppliers, and concludes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties is in the Union interest.
– **Collection of Provisional Duties:** The regulation finalizes the collection of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed earlier in the investigation.
– **Invoice Requirement:** The application of individual duty rates is conditional upon the presentation of a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
– **Reporting Requirements:** Member States are required to report the number of pieces imported under the relevant CN/TARIC codes on a monthly basis.
Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 4 février 2026.#Ján Škor contre Commission européenne.#Recours en indemnité – Responsabilité non contractuelle de l’Union – Droit institutionnel – Projet d’approvisionnement en eau potable en Slovaquie – Décision de l’OLAF de ne pas rouvrir l’enquête et de ne pas en ouvrir une nouvelle – Prescription – Irrecevabilité.#Affaire T-394/24.
This document is a judgment by the European Union Tribunal (Ninth Chamber) in Case T-394/24, Ján Škor v. European Commission. The judgment concerns a claim for damages brought by Mr. Škor against the European Commission for alleged non-contractual liability due to the actions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Tribunal dismissed the action as inadmissible due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The judgment addresses the admissibility of Mr. Škor’s claim for compensation for the moral damages he allegedly suffered due to the unlawful conduct of OLAF. Mr. Škor argued that OLAF failed to properly investigate potential irregularities in a project co-financed by the Cohesion Fund in Slovakia. He claimed that this failure caused him personal and professional harm, including job loss, family problems, health issues, and even death threats. The Commission argued that the claim was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which sets a five-year limitation period for non-contractual liability actions against the EU.
The key provision of the judgment is the application of the statute of limitations to Mr. Škor’s claim. The Tribunal found that the events and circumstances that Mr. Škor relied upon to demonstrate his moral damages occurred more than five years before he filed his action on July 30, 2024. The Tribunal rejected Mr. Škor’s argument that the damage was continuous, finding that he had not demonstrated that the alleged damage continued after July 30, 2019. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the statute of limitations in actions against the EU and clarifies the conditions under which a claim for continuous damages can be successful.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 February 2026.Radical-Consulting UG and Others v European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking.Research and technological development – Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027) – High-performance computing applications – Call for proposals with a view to the award of a grant – Decision rejecting a proposal – Decision rejecting the request for an evaluation review – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Manifest error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of transparency – Equal treatment – Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2021/695.Case T-328/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the rejection of a grant proposal under the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The case revolves around a consortium of companies (Radical-Consulting UG, Surf BV, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften) challenging the decision of the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC Joint Undertaking) to reject their proposal for the CompBioMed3 project.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses two main issues: the admissibility of the action and the merits of the claims.
* **Admissibility:** The EuroHPC Joint Undertaking argued that the applicants lacked the standing to bring the case, lacked interest in the proceedings, and violated the principle that one cannot sue by proxy. The General Court rejected these arguments, stating that because the consortium lacked legal personality, its members could be considered addressees of the rejection decision and thus had the right to challenge it. The court also found that the applicants had an interest in bringing proceedings because the annulment of the decision could benefit all consortium members.
* **Merits:** The applicants raised several pleas against the rejection decision, including manifest error of assessment, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, infringement of the principle of transparency, and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The court rejected all these pleas.
* The court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the proposal.
* The court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had not applied award criteria that were not provided for in the call for proposals.
* The court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had not made a manifest error of assessment in evaluating the proposal.
* The court found that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had not infringed the principle of equal treatment.
* The applicants also challenged the decision rejecting their request for an evaluation review. The court rejected this challenge as well, finding that the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking had not infringed the obligation to state reasons and had correctly determined that the issues raised in the request for review fell outside the scope of the review procedure.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 263 TFEU:** This article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is the basis for actions for annulment before the EU courts. The judgment clarifies the conditions under which members of a consortium can challenge decisions addressed to the consortium.
* **Regulation (EU) 2021/695 (Horizon Europe Regulation):** This regulation establishes the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The judgment interprets Article 30 of this regulation, which concerns the evaluation review procedure. It clarifies that this procedure is limited to procedural aspects of the evaluation and does not extend to the merits of the proposal.
* **Principle of Transparency:** The judgment reinforces the importance of transparency in grant award procedures, requiring that all conditions and detailed rules be clearly defined in the call for proposals.
* **Principle of Equal Treatment:** The judgment reiterates that the principle of equal treatment requires that comparable situations are not treated differently unless such treatment is objectively justified.
In conclusion, the General Court dismissed the action, upholding the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking’s decision to reject the grant proposal and the subsequent rejection of the request for review.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 February 2026.Médis – Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark WelMedis – Earlier international registration in respect of the figurative mark médis – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-142/25.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by RGCC Holdings AG for the EU figurative mark “WelMedis” and an opposition filed by Médis – Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, S. A., based on their earlier international registration for the figurative mark “médis”. The court ultimately ruled in favor of RGCC Holdings AG, finding no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the purpose of the action, followed by the background to the dispute, including details of the trade mark applications, the opposition, and the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The judgment then details the forms of order sought by each party (applicant, EUIPO, and intervener). The core of the judgment lies in its legal analysis, where the court examines the applicant’s plea of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. This analysis is divided into three complaints: the assessment of the distinctive character of “médis”, the visual and phonetic similarity of the signs, and the impact of earlier decisions. The court systematically addresses each complaint, ultimately concluding that there is no likelihood of confusion and dismissing the action. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the assessment of likelihood of confusion between trade marks, specifically Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. The court’s analysis provides guidance on how to assess the distinctive character of a mark, how to compare marks visually and phonetically, and how to consider the impact of earlier decisions. The judgment emphasizes that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant components, and considering the perception of the average consumer.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2026.Swissgrid AG v European Commission.Energy – European platforms for the exchange of standard products for balancing energy – Switzerland’s participation – Article 1(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – Letter from the Commission refusing to authorise the Swiss transmission system operator to participate in the platforms – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings – Locus standi – Admissibility – Lack of competence of the author of the act.Case T-127/21 RENV.
This is the Judgment of the General Court regarding the case T-127/21 RENV, Swissgrid AG v European Commission, related to the Swiss Confederation’s participation in European platforms for exchanging standard products for balancing energy.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns Swissgrid AG’s challenge to the European Commission’s decision to deny the Swiss Confederation’s participation in European balancing platforms, specifically the Trans European Replacement Reserves Exchange (TERRE) platform. The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision, finding that it was made by an authority lacking the competence to do so. The court addresses the admissibility of the action, the applicant’s standing, and ultimately rules on the substance based on a plea raised *ex officio* regarding the competence of the decision-making body.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Details the context of the dispute, including Swissgrid’s role, the development of the TERRE platform, and opinions from ENTSO-E and ACER regarding Swiss participation.
* **Facts:** Recounts the exchange of letters between the Commission, ENTSO-E, and Swissgrid, leading to the Commission’s refusal to authorize Swiss participation.
* **Earlier Proceedings:** Summarizes the initial proceedings before the General Court, the appeal to the Court of Justice, and the subsequent referral back to the General Court.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the claims of the applicant and the responses of the Commission.
* **Law:** Contains the legal analysis, including:
* **The applicant’s standing to bring proceedings:** Addresses whether Swissgrid has the right to challenge the Commission’s decision.
* **The applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings:** Examines whether Swissgrid still benefits from pursuing the action.
* **Substance:** Discusses the pleas raised by the applicant and the Court’s *ex officio* raising of the issue of the decision-maker’s competence.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the expenses of the legal proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Article 1(6) and (7) of Regulation 2017/2195:** These provisions are central to the case, as they outline the conditions under which non-EU countries like Switzerland can participate in European balancing platforms.
* **Lack of Competence:** The key finding is that the Commission’s decision was made by a director of DG Energy, who lacked the authority to make such a decision. This violates the principle of collegiality, which requires decisions of principle to be deliberated upon by the College of Commissioners.
* **Annulment:** The General Court annuls the Commission’s decision based on the lack of competence, without examining the other pleas raised by Swissgrid.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
* The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the correct decision-making procedures within the EU institutions. It highlights that decisions with significant implications, such as those affecting participation in key energy platforms, must be made by the appropriate authority (in this case, the College of Commissioners).
* The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a non-EU entity can challenge EU decisions that affect its interests, particularly in cases where the entity is directly and individually concerned by the decision.
* The case underscores the principle that the EU judicature can, and indeed must, examine the competence of the author of a challenged act *ex officio*, meaning even if the parties do not raise the issue themselves.
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Armenia in European Union crisis management operations
This notice announces the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia, which establishes a framework for Armenia’s participation in EU crisis management operations. The agreement allows Armenia to contribute to EU’s efforts in maintaining peace and security. The agreement entered into force on January 1, 2026, following the completion of internal procedures by both the EU and Armenia, as stipulated in Article 17(1) of the Agreement.
The notice itself doesn’t detail the structure of the agreement. It simply states the date of entry into force. To understand the structure and main provisions, one would need to consult the original agreement (OJ L, 2025/1553, 31.7.2025).
The most important provision highlighted by this notice is Article 17(1) of the Agreement, which specifies that the agreement comes into force only after both parties have completed their internal procedures and notified each other. This ensures that both the EU and Armenia are fully prepared to implement the agreement.
: This agreement and its entry into force are particularly important for Ukraine, as it signifies a potential enhancement of security cooperation between the EU and Armenia, which could have implications for the broader geopolitical landscape in the region.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 194/25/COL of 24 November 2025 on the compatibility with EEA law of measures to be taken by Norway pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) [2026/304]
This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision concerns the compatibility of measures Norway intends to take under Article 14 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU) with EEA law. The decision concludes that the Norwegian measures, which aim to ensure broad public access to events of major importance for society, are indeed compatible with EEA law. These measures include listing specific events that must be broadcast on free-to-air television.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with recitals that outline the background, the notification by Norway, and the Authority’s verification process. The recitals detail the criteria used to determine the importance of events, specifically mentioning the resonance within the EEA EFTA State, cultural importance, involvement of the national team, and traditional free-to-air broadcasting. The decision then states its conclusion in Article 1, affirming the compatibility of Norway’s measures with EEA law. Article 2 requires Norway to communicate the final adopted measures to the Authority for publication, and Article 3 indicates that the decision is addressed to Norway.
The most important provision is Article 1, which declares that Norway’s intended measures are compatible with EEA law. This allows Norway to proceed with implementing its national regulations to ensure that events of major importance are broadcast on free-to-air television, ensuring wide public access. The decision highlights the importance of events such as the football World Cup, the European football championship, the Women’s World Cup and the Women’s European Football Championship, and the Men’s World and European Handball Championships.
